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
(n') Whether exercise of the recreational in-channel cii.version <br />wculd cause material injury to instream flow water ri,ghts <br />appropriated pursuant to subsections (3) and (4) of thi:c section; <br />(V) Whether adjudication and administration of the rec;reational in- <br />channel diversion would promote maximum utilizatiojl of waters <br />of the state as referenced in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this <br />sec,tion; and <br />(V I) Such other factors as may be determined appropriate for <br />evaluation of recreational in-channel diversions and set forth in <br />rules adopted by the board, after pubiic notice and corxunent. <br />§ 37-92-102(6)(a) and (b). The CWCB is then directed to report its i:indings to the water court <br />for review pursuant to section 37-92-305(13). The General Assembly directed that water judges <br />must apply the sane factors, and the fndings and recoznmendation af the CWCB are <br />presumptive as to such facts, subject to rebuttal. § 37-92-305(13);. Cf. Chatfield East Well Co., <br />Ltd. v. Cha f eld East Prop. Owners Ass'n, 956 P.2d 1260, 1266 (Colo. 1998) (noi:ing that the <br />water court mus: apply the standards of the Groundwater Management Act, and rriust consult <br />with the state engineer and give presumptive effect to the state engineer's findings of fact.) <br />These factors, along with the limits on the size and scope of an RICD in the definition of <br />an RICD, whicYL is then included in the definitions of "diversion" and "beneficial use," require <br />water judges to determine the allowable size and scope of a water right for RICD purposes. The <br />language could not be clearer: an RICD is limited to the "minimuni stream flow as it is ... <br />placed to a benf:f cial use between specific points defined by physical control structures ... for a <br />reasonable recr-.ation experience on the water." § 37-92-103(10.3); see Beeghly, 20 P.3d at 612- <br />13 ("In determining statutory purpose, we first look to the language; used by the legislature and <br />give words the,r commonly accepted and understood meaning. When the language is clear and <br />unambiguous, it may be presumed that the legislature meant what it cleaxly stated in the <br />statute.") (citations omitted). <br />13
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.