Answer Brief of Amici Curiae - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

statute in effect at that time. No party to the case claimed an appropriation of water, and the Court discussed the constitutional right to appropriate water only to distinguish water rights appropriation from the access question that was at issue. Emmert, 597 P. 2d at 1028. Recreational use of water is further supported by its economic potential. This Court may take judicial notice that recreation and related tourism are one of the biggest and fastest growing industries in this State. As such, entities in the recreation-based economy should be entitled to exercise the constitutional right to appropriate in the same manner, and subject to the same standards, as any other beneficial use. If economic return was to become the measure of a water right, there are a number of traditional water uses that could never begin to approach the value of recreation. IX. RICD RIGHTS SERVE THE STATE POLICY OF MAXIMUM UTILIZATION. The "maximum utilization" doctrine that the State cites as authority to limit RICDs in fact works against its position. (State at 22-24). In the Empire Lodge decision, this Court explained "maximum utilization" means "maximizing the use of Colorado's limited water supply for as many decreed uses as possible consistent with meeting the state's interstate delivery obligations..." Empire Lodge, 39 P.3d 1139, 1150 (Colo. 2001). The "maximum utilization" doctrine has never operated as a cap on new water rights claims. Such claims, like all other water rights in Colorado, are limited by the doctrines of waste and speculation. In this regard, RICDs fit exactly with and, in fact, promote the "maximum utilization" principle as explained by the Supreme Court. They are an additional, clean use of water on top of, and that work in tandem with, existing and future downstream diversions, generating revenue without polluting or consuming a single drop. "Maximum utilization" is served because the water passing through Tm1650 18