Amici Curiae Brief of Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, Town of Minturn, Grand County, Gunnison County, Pitkin County

• 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

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
II.
STATEMENT OF ISSLTES ..............................................:.....................,.....,.......................1
STATEIIENT OF CASE .......................................................................,............................1
III. SUlVIlVV.,RY OF ARGUIVIENT ..........................................................................................1
IV. ARGUNENT ......................................................................................................................3
A. R.ecreation is a Cornerstone of the State's Economy and Recre.ational In-Channel
E?iversions aze Necessary to Support This Economic Sector ..................................3
B. S.B. 216 Reflects the Evolution of the Prior Appropriation Syst:em and Does Not
C:reate a New Water Right ......................................................................................6
1. Water law has evolved to accommodate recreational In••channel
Diversions as a beneficial use .....................................................................6
2. The legislature did not untend to create a"new water ri€;ht" when it
enacted S.B. 216 ...........................................................,,.............................8
3. Neither the CWCB nor the water court should second-€;uess the intent of
the appropriator ...........................................................................................9
4. RICDs fiuther the policy of maximum utilization ....................................11
C. S.B. 216 Did Not Change the Role of the Water Court and Did Not Give the
C'WCB Veto Power ...............................................................................................12
1. S.B. 216 is not ambiguous ...:....................................................................12
2. The water court properly applied the RICD statute to determine the
amount of water that satisfied RICD criteria ............................................14
a. The water court recognized that the RICD is a beneficial
use and that the ainount of the RICD must be established
accordingly ....................................................................................15
b. The water court gave careful consideration to all etiridence
regarding the amount of water that should be df:creed .................16
C. If the statutory factors are satisfied without wa:ote, then the amount
of water sought by the applicant should be granited ......................17
i