Laserfiche WebLink
;i- <br />STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW <br />Amici adopt the statement of issues set forth in the Answer brief filed by the Upper <br />Gunnison River Water Conservancy District ("Upper Gunnison"). <br />STATEMENT OF THE CASE <br />Amici adopt the statement of the case set forth in the Answer brief filed by Upper <br />Gunnison. <br />SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT <br />The Colorada Water Conservation Board ("CWCB") and the State and Division <br />Engineers (collectively the "State") are asking this Court to grant the authority over recreational <br />in-channel diversion ("RICD") water rights that the CWCB sought, but could not obtain, from <br />the General Assembly. The legislation that was passed, known as Senate Bill O 1-216 ("SB <br />216"), codified the previously existing right to appropriate water for in-channel recreational <br />diversion structures. While it granted the CWCB an advisory role with respect to future RICDs, <br />the legislation did not make the CWCB the final arbiter for such water rights. It also did not <br />grant the CWCB the right to dictate that RICDs be limited to a bare minimum flow standard <br />analogous to the amount allowed under the state instream flow program. <br />Instead, SB 216 recognized the significant state interest in protecting recreational water <br />rights and sought to blend that important interest with more traditional uses of water. Claims for <br />recreational water rights under SB 216 must be assessed under the plain language of that bill, <br />and against the full framework of Colorado water law. The CWCB was given an advisory role <br />under SB 216 to review RICD claims pursuant to five specified criteria, which do not include a <br />determination of flow rate. SB 216 then allows the CWCB to make a non-binding <br />recommendation to the water court concerning whether a claim should be granted, granted with <br />Tm1650 1