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
adding RICD to the definition of "beneficial use," Senate Bill 216 does not change these <br />fundamental elements. <br />The General Assembly was keenly aware that limits on water rights for RICD purposes <br />are necessary because, unlike appropriations for traditional consumptive uses, there is no <br />consumptive use to measure and limit the right. See App., 4/12/01 Senate Committee Hearing at <br />23 (Rep. Paulson); id. at 38 (M. Pifher); 4/18/01 Senate Committee Hearing at 22 (M. Shimmin); <br />id. at 33 (R. Trout); id. at 36 (P. Wells). Unregulated, water rights for RTCDs have the potential <br />to allow water users to obtain rights to the entire flow of a stream because there are virtually no <br />limits on the ability to control water within a stream channel for recreational uses, particularly <br />for the more extreme fornls of white water kayaking and rafting. From the Golden case, in <br />particular, the General Assembly was well aware that extremely large flows could be claimed for <br />in-channel "expert" kayak courses. <br />Thus, the General Assembly recognized that reasonable limits on water rights for RICD <br />purposes were critical to balance the use of water for in-channel recreational use with the ability <br />to divert and store water under our compact entitlements for more traditional consumptive use <br />purposes, and the water court's obligation to determine the minimum stream flow required for a <br />reasonable recreation experience is therefore a critical com.ponent of the General Assembly's <br />policy to maximize the beneficial use of water in this state. If water courts are not required to <br />determine the minimum stream flow for a reasonable recreational experience, cities and other <br />governmental entities could lay claim to water rights for RTCD purposes for large stream flows <br />for "expert" kayaking courses or other extreme forms of white water recreation, thereby <br />preventing the diversion and storage of water for traditional consumptive uses, as well as <br />16
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.