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
(Colo. 2003). When it enacted S.B. 216 to address and confirm these appropriations for kayak <br />courses, the General Assembly amended the definition of diversion in effect at the time of the <br />Fort Collins case. This change allowed only govemmental entities to appropriate water for <br />recreational in-channel diversions. See C.RS. § 37-92-103(7). Otherwise, the definition of <br />diversion remains unchanged and continues to include control of water within its natural course <br />or location as a valid type of diversion. <br />The General Assembly nazned in-chanrael recreational water rights, like those <br />appropriated by the City of Fort Collins, in-channel diversions when it enacted S.B. 216. It <br />would be nonsensical to describe these water rights as diversions if they were an exception to the <br />diversion requirement. Moreover, the Legislative Statement accompanying S.B. 216 reads, in <br />pertinent part: "S.B. 216 is designed to insure that decrees for a recreational in-channel <br />diversion (RICD), as recognized by the Colorado Supreme Court in the City of Thornton v. Citv <br />of Ft. Collins, are integrated into the prior appropriation system...: " The Legislative Statement <br />clearly shows that the Legislature was merely trying to integrate these recreational in-channel <br />rights into the existing prior appropriation system. S.B. 216 also provides a more specific <br />definition of an in-channel diversion as a beneficial use, imposes linutation on the class of <br />appropriators, provides new procedural requirements, and delegates an advisory role to the <br />CWCB. However, it certainly does not create either an exception to the diversion requirement or <br />a new water right, as argued by the CWCB. <br />3. Neither the CWCB nor the water court should second-guess the intent of the <br />apnropriator. <br />The General Assembly has defined the general purpose for which water must be <br />appropriated in order to qualify as an RICD, a.nd the water court is bound by this definition. See <br />9
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.