My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Opening Brief
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
3001-4000
>
Opening Brief
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:41:42 PM
Creation date
7/29/2009 3:05:54 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
Ken Salazar, Susan Schneider
Title
Opening Brief
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.
/
34
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
neither sanctioned claims of any "size and scope" nor recognized a constitutional right to <br />appropriate water for recreational instream uses, as the Water Court did here. <br />Despite the clear intent of the Legislature to prevent recreational instream flows by <br />passing SB 212,4 certain parties claimed virtually the entire hydrographs of Clear Creek, Gore <br />Creek and the Blue River in 2000 and 2001 (up to 1000, 400 and 500 c.f.s., respectively).5 The <br />Legislature responded to prevent such "very large water claims ... for recreational purposes" <br />(Exhibit G, May 8, 2001, Representative Spradley, p. 3) by enacting SB 216 to recognize, but <br />limit recreational instream uses to prevent further excessive claims (such as the 1500 c.f.s. <br />claimed here). <br />SB 216 was also "controversial," (Exhibit H, April 12, 2001, Senate Committee Hearing, <br />Senator Entz, p. 1), but the Legislature recognized "a need for this legislation" to prevent "a run <br />on the courthouse" for appropriations that "command the entire flow of the river and can be used <br />by any entity to control all outstanding water."6 (Exhibit H, Senator Entz, p. 1). The Legislature <br />4 During the legislative hearing, it was specifically acknowledged that SB 212 would prevent <br />instream flow appropriations for recreation. (Exhibit F, p. 2). <br />5 State Engineer & CWCB v. City of Golden, 69 P.3d 1027 (Colo. 2003); State En ing eer & <br />CWCB v. Eagle River Water & Sanitation District & the Town of Breckenridg, 69 P.3d 1028 <br />(Colo. 2003). <br />" Both SB 212 and SB 216 were enacted after the water right appropriation dates in Fort Collins, <br />Golden, Eagle, and Breckenridge, but before this Court had an opportunity to review their <br />legality. Further, the Legislature enacted SB 216 even before the Water Courts ruled on the <br />Golden, Eagle, and Breckenridge applications, but did not apply SB 216 retroactively. State <br />Engineer & CWCB v. Citv of Golden, 69 P.3d 1027 (Colo. 2003); State Engineer & CWCB v. <br />Eagle River Water & Sanitation District, 69 P.3d 1028 (Colo. 2003); State EngLineer & CWCB v. <br />Town of Breckenridge, 69 P.3d 1028 (Colo. 2003). <br />10
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.