My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Brief of Amici Curiae
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
2001-3000
>
Brief of Amici Curiae
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:41:42 PM
Creation date
7/29/2009 3:03:22 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
7/26/2004
Author
David L. Robbins, Lee E. Miller, Patricia L. Wells, Robert G. Weiss, John M, Dingess
Title
Brief of Amici Curiae
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.
/
32
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
IV. ARGUMENT <br />A. The Water Court's Decision is Contrary to the Intent and Purpose of Senate Bi11216 <br />"Scarcity and value of the water resource has always driven Colorado water law; <br />accordingly, the state's policy is to efficiently manage, administer, and optimize water for <br />operation of as many decreed uses as there is available supply." Farmers Reser-voir and Irr. Co. <br />v. Ciry of Golden, 44 P.3d 241, 245 (Coio. 2002) (quoting Farmers Reservoir and Irr. Co. v, <br />Consolidated Mutual Water Co, 33 P.3d 799, 806 (Colo. 2001)); accord Board of County <br />Comm'rs v. Crystal CreekHomeowners'Ass'n, 14 P.3d 325, 333 (Colo. 2000) ("Colorado policy <br />seeks to optimize the beneficial use of all available waters of the state."); City of Thornton v. <br />Bijoac Irr. Co., 926 P.2d 1, 85 (Colo. 1996) ("[T]he water right administration system developed <br />by the General Assembly focuses on alleviating scarcity by `maximizing the beneficial use of all <br />the waters of this state and preserving the value by protecting vested ri ghts in state waters. "') <br />(citations omitted)). The water judge's disregard for the limits imposed by the General <br />Assembly on the size and scope of a water right for an RICD ignores the General Assembly's <br />clear intent to further this important policy. <br />A court's fundamental task in construing a statute is to determine and give effect to the <br />legislature's intent in enacting the statute. Double RL Co. v. Telluray Ranch Props., 54 P.3d <br />908, 910 (Colo. 2001); Empire Lodge Homeowners' Ass'n v. Moyer, 39 P.3d 1139, 1152 (Colo. <br />2002); Beeghly v. Mack, 20 P.3d 610, 612 (Colo. 2001). In doing so, the court "should give <br />effect to each word and construe each provision in harmony with the overall statutory design, <br />whenever possible." Empire Lodge, 39 P.3d at 1152 (citing City of Florence v. Bd of <br />Waterworks, 793 P.2d 148, 151 (Colo. 1990)). In addition, the court should "consider the <br />General Assembly's course of action and intent when enacting, amending, and repealing <br />statutes." Id. "A construction of statutory language that creates doubts as to the constitutional <br />10
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.