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
channel diversion" whenever the term is used in article 37. Further, established law requires the <br />definition of "recreational in-channel diversion" to apply whenever the term is used in article 37. <br />Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Bill Bloom, Inc., 961 P.2d 465, 470 (Colo. 1998); R.E.N. v. Citv of <br />Colo. Springs, 823 P.2d 1359 (Colo. 1992). <br />The Legislature's definition of the term "recreational in-channel diversion" governs <br />wherever it appears in the statute (i.e., in section 37-92-102(6)(b)(I) &(N) &(V) &(VI)'o, <br />C.R.S. (2003)). The plain language of the statute requires, inter alia, that the CWCB determine <br />whether the claimed RICD is for the minimum stream flow for a reasonable recreation <br />experience and promotes maximum utilization and does not impair compact entitlements. §§ <br />37-92-103(10.3) & 37-92-102(6)(b)(I) & (V). <br />SB 97 "creat[ed] a right to appropriate" water for uses instream, and "limited" those <br />appropriations to "a particular amount of water, i.e., the minimum amount necessary. ..." <br />Aspen Wilderness Workshop, Inc. v. Colorado Water Conservation Bd., 901 P.2d 1251, 1260 <br />(Colo. 1995) (emphasis added). Similarly, SB 216 created a"change in water law" that was <br />limited to a particular amount of water, i.e., the minimum amount necessary. (See Exhibit G, <br />10 Thus, the Legislature granted the CWCB the authority to determine whether: <br />1. "the adjudication and administration of the [`minimum stream flow ... for a reasonable <br />recreation experience'] would impair the ability of Colorado to fully develop and place to <br />consumptive beneficial use its compact entitlements"; <br />IV. "exercise of the [`minimum stream flow'] would cause material injury to instream <br />flow water rights"; <br />V. "adjudication and administration of the [`minimum stream flow'] would promote <br />maximum utilization of the waters of the state..."; and <br />VI. "[s]uch other factors as may be determined appropriate for evaluation of [`minimum <br />stream flow'] and set forth in rules...." §§ 37-92-102(6)(b)(I)-(VI) & 37-92-103(10.3). <br />16
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.