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
"(Exhibit H, Sen. Entz, p. 1; Exhibit I, May 7, 2001, Rep. Spradley, p. 18; Exhibit G, Rep. <br />Spradley, p. 3-4). <br />Although the courts had not yet decreed the recreational instream uses requested on Clear <br />Creek, Gore Creek and the Blue River,g the Legislature enacted SB 216 to ensure that if such <br />large recreational in-channel uses were recognized, future claims could only be decreed for the <br />minimum amount necessary to ensure that the flow of the entire stream would not be completely <br />tied up by a RICD. (Exhibit J, SB 216 Legislative Statement, Rep. Spradley). The Legislature <br />was acting to prevent "flood gates" opening and "a run on the courthouse" for claims of "an <br />entire river" if the courts eventually approved such recreational instream flows. (Exhibit H, Sen. <br />Entz; p.l; Exhibit G, Rep. Young, p. 10). <br />The Legislattare's primary concern was limiting the amount of water claimed for <br />recreational instream uses. Therefore, it defined "`recreational in-channel diversion' such that <br />only the `minimum' flow necessary to support the recreational activity can be sought." (Exhibit <br />J, p. 1. A"need for this legislation [came] as a result of certain local districts filing very large <br />claims" that "command the entire flow of the river and can be used by any entity to control all <br />outstanding water. ..." (Exhibit G, Rep. Spradley, p.3; Exhibit H, Sen. Entz, p. 1). The <br />"minimum" flow "would mean that the applicant could potentially obtain a right to the minimum <br />amount of water necessary to float a kayak". (Exhibit J, p. 1). <br />a"I think this bill in general is premature, we don't know if [it's] even a problem, yes [these] big <br />huge water rights have been requested, they haven't been granted yet. I don't think they should <br />be either, but I don't know we need this law to do the court's job" [in limiting such rights]. <br />(Exhibit G, Rep. Madden, p. 9). "This issue isn't even settled right now, it's being adjudicated in <br />Golden and we don't know what the decision is going to be ... This ["new right"] may not be <br />even necessary - we don't know until the judgment comes down from the case in Golden." <br />(Exhibit G, Rep. Plant, p. 6). <br />14
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.