Laserfiche WebLink
principles acceptcd by the Division 4 Water Court are permitted to stand, these efforts are at <br />great risk. <br />III. SUMMARY OF ARGUMEN7, <br />The Recri;ational In-Channel Diversion statute, Colo. Sess. :Laws 2001, Ch. 305, codified <br />at §§ 37-92-102(.5) &(6), 37-92-103(4), (7) &(10.3), 37-92-305(13) through (16), 10 C.R.S. <br />(2003) ("Senate ]3i11216"), was passed in 2001 to establish standards and reasonable limits <br />whereby the wat,,-r courts - with the assistance of the Colorado Water Conservatio:n Board - <br />could determine water rights for recreational in-channel diversions ("RICD") consistent with the <br />state's policy to :naximize the utilization of the state's water for beneficial uses. Both the <br />language and history of the statute evince a clear intent to place reasonable limits on the ability <br />to obtain a watei- right for recreational in-channel diversion purposes to ensure that Colorado's <br />scarce water resources remain available for beneficial consumptive ases to the extent allowed by <br />our compact entitlements and that the beneficial use of water will be maximized, c;onsistent with <br />long-established Colorado water law principles. The distinetion between recreational flows (and <br />minimum flows to protect the environment, for that matter) as a beneficial use anci the more <br />traditional constimptive beneficial uses is an important one if Colorado is to obtain the full <br />benefit of the arportionments it has obtained through its interstate compacts. The water judge <br />erroneously rule:d on the Applicant's application based on a misunderstanding of the Colorado <br />Constitution an(i the General Assembly's power to define "diversion" and "beneficial use." The <br />Water Court mtist limit the Applicant's claim concerning the size and scope of a•water right for <br />RICD purposes to the minimum stream flow required for a reasonable recreational experience. <br />9