My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Amici Curiae Brief of Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, Town of Minturn, Grand County, Gunnison County, Pitkin County
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
2001-3000
>
Amici Curiae Brief of Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, Town of Minturn, Grand County, Gunnison County, Pitkin County
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:41:41 PM
Creation date
7/29/2009 2:36:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8230.2F
Description
Colorado Supreme Court Appeal
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
4
Date
9/29/2004
Author
Barbara Green, Anne Castle, John M. Ely, David Baumgarten
Title
Amici Curiae Brief of Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, Town of Minturn, Grand County, Gunnison County, Pitkin County
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Court Documents
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
65
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
values 3 <br />New ways of using water have always been met with alarm; yet "what constitutes a <br />beneficial use tracks legislative enactrnents, court decisions, and principally, the acts of <br />appropriators which control the water for their purpose." Santa Fe Trail Ranches Prop. Owners <br />Ass'n v. Simpson, 990 P. 2d 46, 54 (Colo. 1999) ("Santa Fe Ranches"). In 1886, in Larimer Co. <br />Reservoir Co. v. People ex rel. Luthe, 9 P. 794 (Colo. 1886), objectors to a reservoir warned that <br />"using the beds of streams in this way will lead to serious discord, contention, and trouble." Id. <br />at 796. In 1897, the Colorado General Assembly adopted its first sta.tute allowing for exchanges <br />of water rights. In City of Westminster v. Church, 167 Colo. 1, 13, 445 P.2d 52, 58 (1968), <br />"municipal uses" were specifically recognized as beneficial uses, wluch included a wide variety <br />of uses incident to governmental activities. In 1973, when societal values shifted towards <br />protection of the environment, the General Assembly adopted the in-stream flow program to <br />protect in-stream flow values. This Court upheld the in-stream flow program in 1979, in spite of <br />the fact that in-stream flow rights could be appropriated and applied to beneficial use without a <br />diversion. Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v. Colo. Water Conservation Bd, 594 P.2d 570 <br />(Colo. 1979). In the 1980s, the uses of water for land reclamation and dust suppression were <br />upheld as beneficial uses in connection with application of State mi.ning and air quality laws. <br />State of Colo. v. S.W. Colo. Water Conservation Dist., 671 P.2d 1294, 1323 (Colo. 1983). <br />3"The doctrine of prior appropriation has evolved to meet changing needs as the West has <br />matured and diversified. Changes have occurred with different emphasis and at different rates <br />from state to state ... The flexibility of the appropriation doctrine has been... one of its most <br />important chara.cteristics. It evolved as a method for ada.pting to change in mining and irrigation <br />practices, and it will flourish if ttiat adapta.tion process continues." Norman Johnson and Chazles <br />DuMazs, A Survey of the Evolution of Western Water Law in Response to Chan?p Economic <br />Public Interest Demands, 29 Nat. Resources J. 347, 387 (1989). <br />7
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.