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
proceeding so th,at local govemment decision-making is respected and the couit's role as final <br />arbiter of water iights is protected. <br />The power of Colorado water law lies in its ability to recognize new and economically <br />beneficial uses of water and to accommodate changing conditions. Colorado Nvater law has <br />evolved to accor,nmodate in-channel recreation as a beneficial use, and S.B. 216 reflects the <br />evolution of the prior appropriation system. S.B. 216 does not create a new w,ater right or an <br />exception to the diversion requirement. The Legislature, by adoption of S.B. 216, was merely <br />trying to integral:e recreational in-channel rights into the e}usting prior appropiiation system, and <br />has defined the general purpose for which water must be appropriated in order• to qualify as a <br />recreational in-c hannel diversion ("RICD"). The water court is bound by this definition. Neither <br />the CWCB nor the water court should second-guess the intent of the appropriator. The amount <br />of water requireoi for an RICD and how and when it will be used turn on the purpose of the <br />appropriation. 71ie proper limita.tions on the amount of water that may be appropriated for <br />RICDs are founii in the long-standing prohibitions against waste and speculatiion. Additionally, <br />RICDs further tlie policy of maximum utilization by stimulating the recreational economy and <br />leaving water in the streams for use by other Colorado appropriators. <br />S.B. 216 did not change the role of the water court and did not give the CWCB veto <br />power. S.B. 216 creates an advisory role for the CWCB by requiring the CWCB to make <br />recommendatioiis to the water court on an RICD application, based upon findings of fact that aze <br />presumptive and subject to rebuttal. Further, S.B. 216 establishes criteria that: both the CWCB <br />and the water court must apply to evaluate an RICD application. S.B. 216 is :not ambiguous, and <br />does not require this Court to look at the legislative history in order to understandl its meaning. <br />2
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.