Laserfiche WebLink
recognized that "these recreational water rights are new water rights" and "a change in water <br />law" (not existing constitutional rights). (Exhibit G, Rep. Spradley, p.7; Rep. Young, p. 7, p. 2). <br />There has never been a constitutional right nor - until SB 216 - a legislatively created <br />right to appropriate water for recreational instream uses. The Water Court's holding that there is <br />a constitutional right to appropriate water for instream uses (limited only by the Applicant's <br />"determination of the size and scope") must be reversed, because it misinterprets the <br />Constitution, usurps the Legislature's authority and also eviscerates the CWCB's authority under <br />SB 216. <br />II. THE WATER COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO LIMIT THE <br />REQUESTED RICD TO A"MINIMUM STREAM FLOW," AS <br />REQUIRED UNDER SB 216. <br />The Water Court did not give separate and distinct meaning to the term "minimum <br />stream flow," but rather determined that the newly added term was subsumed within preexisting <br />terms, such as waste and beneficial use.7 (Exhibit A, pp. 17-19). The Water Court held that the <br />Legislature did not intend "to deviate" from "traditional water law principles" with SB 216 or <br />"they would have said so." (Exhibit A, p. 17). The Water Court erred in disregaxding the plain <br />language of SB 216 limiting recreational instream uses to the "minimum stream flow." The <br />Water Court also erred in ignoring the legislative history that shows that RICDs were limited to a <br />7 The State agrees with the Water Court that RICD applicants must still satisfy the additional <br />requirements of preventing waste, using only reasonable and appropriate amounts, and putting <br />water to "beneficial use." § 37-92-103(4), C.R.S. (2004). However, contrary to the Water <br />Court's holding, the additional requirements of SB-216 must also be met. <br />11