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
If the language of section 37-92-103(10.3) were not clear enough, the legislative history <br />of Senate Bi11216, quoted at length in the Water Court's decision, demonstrates that the purpose <br />of the bill was to place reasonable limits on RICDs.s In its "Legislative Statement," the purpose <br />of the bill is described as: <br />to ensure that decrees for recreational in-channel diversions, as <br />recognized by the Colorado Supreme Court in the City of Thornton <br />v. City of Fort Collins case, are integrated into the state prior <br />appropriation system in a manner which appropriately balances the <br />need for water based recreational opportunities with the ability of <br />Colorado citizens to divert and store water under our compact <br />entitlements for more traditional consumptive use purposes, such <br />as municipal, industrial and agricultural uses. <br />App., S.B. 216 Legislative Statement. Thus, recognizing the need to divert and store water for <br />more traditional consumptive use purposes, the General Assembly limited a water right for RICD <br />purposes to "the minimum amount of water necessary to accomplish the appropriation." App., <br />4/12/01 Senate Committee Hearing at 3-4 (R. Kuharich); see also id. at 33 (S. Bushong) (Senate <br />Bi11216 limits RICDs to "minimum flows") <br />The authors and proponents of the bill specifcally intended to place such a limit on water <br />rights for RICDs so that water users could not obtain decrees for the entire flow of a stream, <br />thereby preventing future water development and inhibiting the maximum utilization of the <br />waters of the state. See App., 4/12/01 Senate Committee Hearing at 1(Sen. Entz); id. at 23, 25, <br />27 (Rep. Paulson); id. at 38 (M. Pifher); 4/18/01 Senate Committee Hearing at 7(Sen. <br />Anderson); id. at 22, 24, 27 (M. Shimmin); id. at 31-32 (S. Sims); id. at 36 (P. Wells). Thus, the <br />legislature intended water courts to do precisely what the Water judge declined to do in this case, <br />i. e., determine the minimum stream flow required for a reasonable recreation experience. The <br />5 The complete legislative history of SB216 is attached as an Appendi:c to this brief for the Court's <br />convenience. <br />14
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.