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
provision was in1:ended to conf rm that the riparian system, which was particularly ill-suited for <br />conditions in Co lorado, did not apply in our state. Coffin v. Left Hand Ditch Co., Ei Colo. 443, <br />446-47 (1882); I'unker v. Nichols, 1 Colo. 551 (1872); see also UnitErd States v. City & Caunty of <br />Denver, 656 P.2d l, 6(Colo. 1982); Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Coll.ard, 827 P.Zd 546, 549-50 <br />(Colo. 1992). Our semiarid climate and the markedly different conditions west of the 100`h <br />Meridian require:d recognition of a new doctrine. United States v. City & County of Denver, 656 <br />P.2d at 6. Muni,:ipalities, agriculture, and industry throughout Colorado all deper..d on the <br />continued existence and availability of water from the rivers of this state. Id. at 7. <br />Almost fiom the begiruling, the General Assembly has regulated the appropriation, <br />administration, and adjudication of water to provide a water ailocation and administration system <br />"that promotes lnultiple use of a finite resource for beneficial purposes," by fostering "optimum <br />use, efficient water management, and priority administration." Empire Lodge, 39 P.3d at 1146- <br />47 (citing Santa Fe Trail Ranches Prop. Owners Ass'n, 990 P.2d at 54). This Court has <br />recognized that the nature of a."diversion" required to appropriate waters of natw-al streams for <br />benef cial use and what constitutes a"beneficial use" are subject to regulation by the General <br />Assembly, as it has done in the 1969 Act by defining "appropriation," "beneficial use" and <br />"diversion." See, e.g., § 37-92-103(3), (4), (7), 10 C.R.S. (2003); C;olo. River Water <br />Conservation L)ist. v. Colo. Water Conservation Bd., 197 Colo. 469, 476, 594 P.:Zd 570, 574-75 <br />(1979); City of Thornton v. Bijou Irr. Co., 926 P.2d l, 38-39 (Colo.l996) (discu:;sing General <br />Assembly's aniendment of definition of "appropriation" to codify i:he anti-speculation doctrine <br />while carving <>ut an exception for municipalities). And the General Assembly rnay delegate the <br />right to make z.ppropriations for certain purposes to certain entities. Colo. Rzver Water <br />Conservation iDist., 197 Colo. at 477-80, 594 P.2d at 575-77. <br />18
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.