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
preventing changes of water rights and exchanges that may be necessary to satisfy the growing <br />water needs of Colorado's citizens. See Farmers Res., 44 P.3d at 245 n.2. <br />C. Nothin2 i? the Colorado Constitution Prevents the Water Court from Lirnitina the <br />Amount of Water Granted for an RICD. <br />The Water judge's refusal to limit the size and scope of the RICD claimed by the <br />Applicant for its kayak course was based on his conclusion that such limits would infringe on the <br />right to divert guaranteed in the Colorado Constitution. While recognizing that the ultimate goal <br />is to maximize uses consistent with Colorado's interstate compact obligations, the Water judge <br />refused to apply the limits contained in section 37-92-103(10.3), holding that "[t]o preclude an <br />Applicant from determining precisely the size and scope of any recreational in channel diversion <br />would appear to infringe on the Constitutional right to appropriate." Findings of Fact, <br />Conclusions of Law and Order at 19. This reasoning reflects a misunderstanding of the General <br />Assembly's power to define the terms "diversion" and "beneficial use." <br />The fallacy in the Water judge's reasoning can be exposed by extending it to its logical <br />conclusion. If the constitutional right to appropriate prevents a water court from limiting the size <br />and scope of an RICD as determined by the applicant, it must also preclude the General <br />Assembly from limiting RICD water rights to governmental entities. Likewise, the General <br />Assembly could not limit the appropriation of minimum flows between specific points to <br />preserve the natural environment to a reasonable degree to the Colorado Water Conservation <br />Board. The General Assembly can impose such limits because it has the power to define the <br />terms "diversion" and "beneficial use within reasonable limits, and can Iimit the class of <br />appropriators who may appropriate water for certain purposes. <br />The Colorado Constitution states that "[t]he right to divert the unappropriated waters of <br />any natural stream to beneficial uses shall never be denied." Colo. Const., art. XVI, § 6. This <br />17
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.