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
Senate sponsor of S.B. 216, Senator Entz says, "[the CWCB is] in an advisory 1.30sition and the <br />individual has the same rights as the CWCB ...:' (Second Reading of S.B. 2116 in the Senate, <br />May 3, 2001, p. 2;1. Senator Entz made his comment within minutes of Senator Perlmutter's <br />comment and theri the Senate passed S.B. 216 on Second Reading. Clearly, the. Senators did not <br />have a meeting of the minds. Rod Kuharich, the CWCB Director, during the F[ouse Agriculture <br />Committee hearing stated that "[t]he recommendations have a rebuttable presumption [-] the <br />burden of proof is not a very sfringent burden of proof." House Agriculture. Livestock and <br />Natural Resource;3 Committee Report, pp. 1-2 (May 7, 2001). Clearly, it would be difficult to <br />determine the ent:ire Legislature's intent when members of the General Assernbly and the <br />Executive Directc?r of the CWCB seem to be saying different things. <br />Additionally, "the remarks of a single legislator, even the sponsor, are not controlling in <br />analyzing legislalive history." Chrvsler Corp. v. Brown, 99 S.Ct. 1707, 1722 (1979). For <br />example, it is inappropriate for the CWCB to rely on Representative Spradley's assertion that the <br />"minixnum flow" should be the amount of water necessary to float a kayak. LZterestingly, <br />Representative S.pradley admits in her testimony that her statement was writte:n by the Northern <br />Colorado Water Conservancy District, a known opponent to RICDs, and frorn her comments, it <br />appears she had iiot read the statement before reading it into the record. House Agriculture, <br />Livestock and Natural Resources Committee Report, pp. 1-2 (May 7, 2001). In the end, S.B. 216 <br />is not ambiguou:;, and therefore, there is no need to delve into legislative hist4ary, including <br />rema.rks of indiv:idual legislators, to support a particular view of the legislatio.n. <br />2. The water courtproperly applied the RICD statute to determir-ie tYie amount_of <br />water that satisfied RICD criteria. <br />14
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.