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
The Court has also held that the concept of "beneficial use" is not limited to the three <br />examples listed in the Colorado Constitution, but is a question of fact and depends upon the <br />circumstances in each case. State of Colorado v. Southwestern Colo. Water Conservation Dist., <br />671 P.2d 1294, 1322 (Colo. 1983). However, consistent with the flexibie approach to the <br />definition of beneficial use in case law, this Court has recognized that the General Assembly <br />plays an appropriate role in defining beneficial use. Id. Likewise, the Court has held that a <br />physical diversion is not a constitutional requirement, and has recognized the General <br />Assembly's power to allow appropri ations that do not require a physical diversion, subject to <br />careful limits to ensure the maximum utilization of water. Colorado River Water Conservation <br />Dist., 197 Colo. at 476, 594 P.2d at 574-75. Such minimum flow appropriations are the <br />exception to the rule that water rights are decreed to structures and points of diversion. Dallas <br />Creek Water Co. v. Huey, 933 P.2d 27, 38 & n.9 (Colo. 1997). <br />Senate Bi11216 is the second time the General Assembly has defined a non-consumptive, <br />in-stream right with specified limits. In 1973, the General Assembly passed the Colorado <br />Instream Flow Law, Colo. Sess. Laws 1973, Ch. 442, codified at §§ 37-92-102(3) &(4), 10 <br />C.R.S. (2003), which limited the appropriation of water for instream flow purposes to the <br />minimum flows between specified points on natural streams as are required to preserve the <br />natural environment to a reasonable degree. § 37-92-103(4), 10 C.R.S. (2003). The General <br />Assembly vested the Colorado Water Conservation Board with the exclusive authority, on behalf <br />of the people of the state of Colorado, to make such appropriations and stated that no other <br />person or entity shall be granted a decree adjudicating a right to water for instream flows "for <br />any purpose whatsoever." § 37-92-102(3), 10 C.R.S. (2003). The General Assembly further <br />provided the admonition that nothing in article 92 of title 37 shall be construed as authorizing <br />19
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.