Laserfiche WebLink
S. <br />? <br />ARGUMENT <br />This appeal involves the first water court decision rendered under SB 216. The central <br />issue here is the SB 216 definition of a RICD, and the amount of water that can be claimed for <br />such rights. <br />The State argues that no authority for recreational water rights existed prior to SB 216. <br />On that premise, it attempts to construct an argument that the term "minimum stream flow" in <br />the definition of a RICD must be divorced from the concepts of "beneficial use" and "reasonable <br />recreation experience" that also appear in the definition. The State's argument is that because <br />these are new, legislatively created water rights, they should not be measured against the <br />traditional frarnework of Colorado water law, or the commonly used phrases that also appear in <br />the statutory definition of RICD. Rather, the State argues RICDs should be limited to a bare <br />"minimum" flow, analogous to the "minimum flow" that limits the instream flow program <br />administered exclusively by the CWCB. (State at 11-15). This argument is built on a foundation <br />of faulty premises, and is entirely without merit. <br />As the water court succinctly explained in the decision below, "under traditional water <br />law principles, maximum utilization and beneficial use are balanced against speculation and <br />waste .... Had the legislature intended to deviate from that balance in Senate Bill 216, they <br />would have said so." Decision at 19. The fact is the legislature did not deviate from that balance <br />in SB 216 and, in fact, expressly sought to continue that balance. This Court should reject the <br />State's invitation to create limitations on RICDs that are not contained in the plain language of <br />SB 216 and that undermine traditional notions of appropriation and the workings of the water <br />court system. <br />Tm 1650 <br />3