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
balance recreatiorLal opportunities and more traditional consumptive tises in order tc) maximize <br />the utilization of ivater for beneficiat use, similar to the limits placed on the appropriations of <br />minimum flows ti) preserve the natural environment to a reasonable degee. Id. <br />City of Fort Collins, which explicitly recognized that the CWCB possesses by statute the <br />exclusive right to appropriate minimum stream flows as are requirecl to preserve the natural <br />environment to a reasonable degree, 830 P.2d at 930, does not sugg?:st that the right to divert <br />water for benefic ial use, as those terms are defined by statute, is an unlimited constitutional right <br />to divert the unappropriated waters of any natural stream to beneficial uses. Whether a <br />traditional diversion is necessary, the nature of the diversion necessary to effect an appropriation, <br />and the nature of beneficial uses are subjects which the General Asse;mbly has the power to <br />define to ensure :-naximum utilization of water. Cf. City of Thornton v. Bijou Irr. C;o., 926 P.2d <br />at 86 (in additiorl to the- dual focus on maximum beneficial use for pr.otection of w,3ter rights, <br />water judges mu3t give consideration to the potential impact of the utilization of water on other <br />resources; imposition of a revegetation conditions was within the trial court's authority to <br />balance the beneficial use of water with the preservation of other natural resource:: even w2thout <br />legislative authorization). <br />V. CONCLUSION <br />The Water judge's failure to apply section 37-92-103(10.3) to limit Applic:ant's RICD to <br />the minimum stream flow for a reasonable recreation experience nuis contrary to 'both the <br />purpose and intE:nt of Senate Bill 216 and long-estabtished Colorado water law principles <br />designed to ensiire optimum use of a scarce resource. Nor can the Water judge's failure be <br />supported by th-1 constitutional right to appropriate. Therefore, the Water judge's decision to <br />grant the Applic:ant the full measure of the stream flow requested by the Applicant without <br />determirzing the minimum stream flow for a reasonable recreation experience must be reversed. <br />22
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.