Opening Brief

• 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

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................................1
ISSUES PRESENTED ..............................................................................................................3
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ........................................................................................ 4
ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . ... . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . ..... . . .. . .. . . ... .. . . . ... . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 6
1. WHETHER THE WATER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT
LIMITATIONS ON THE SIZE OF RECREATIONAL INSTREAM WATER
RIGHTS INFRINGE ON THE CONSTITUTION ........................................................6
A. There is No Constitutional Right to Instream Uses in Colorado . ................................ 6
B. The Legislature Properly Exercised its Authority to Grant Limited Instream
Uses in Colorado by Enacting Senate Bills 97, 212 and 216 . ..................................... 8
II. WHETHER THE WATER COURT ERRED 1N FAILING TO LIMIT THE
REQUESTED RICD TO A"MINIMUM STREAM FLOW," AS REQUIRED
UNDER SB 216 . ..........................................................................................................11
A. The Plain Language of SB 216 Limits RICDs to the "minimum stream flow"
for a reasonable recreation experience ....................................................................... 12
B. The Legislature intended to create "new water rights" in SB 216 that were
.
imite to a "mimmum." ............................................................................................. 13
III. WHETHER THE LEGISLATURE GRANTED THE CWCB THE
AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE APPLICATION IS FOR
THE MINIMUM STREAM FLOW FOR A REASONABLE RECREATION
EXPERIENCE; AND . .................................................................................................15
A. The plain language shows that the CWCB has the authority to make a
presumptively valid determination of the minimum stream flow necessary for
a reasonable recreation experience ............................................................................. 15
B. The legislative history shows that the Legislature granted the CWCB the
authority to determine whether the RICD is for the minimum stream flow
necessary for a reasonable recreation experience . ..................................................... 17
IV. WHETHER THE PRESUMPTIVELY VALID CWCB FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS MUST BE UPHELD UNLESS THERE IS CLEAR
AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT THEY ARE IN ERROR ..........................19
A. The CWCB Findings and Recommendations must be upheld unless there is
clear and convincing evidence that they are in error . ................................................ 19
B. The Applicant did not provide clear and convincing evidence that the CWCB
1