Opening Brief - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The CWCB rules and determinations on "maximum utilization" are entitled to deference. Urbish v. Lamm, 761 P.2d 756 (Colo.1988) (agency charged with enforcement of that statute is entitled to deference in its interpretation); CF & I Steel, L.P. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 949 P.2d 577, 585 (Colo.1997) (courts must give significant weight to an agency's interpretation of its own enabling statute). First, SB 216 supports a finding that the RICD promotes maximum utilization at 250 c.f.s. because the intent of SB 216 was to allow only minimal and reasonable appropriations of water to ensure that the state could develop and use its water in the, future. § 37-92-103(10.3). Additionally, the Senate heard testimony that because the diversion requirement created inherent physical and monetary limitations on the amount of water that could be claimed and there were no such limitations for instream uses, the CWCB process could ensure maximum utilization. (Exhibit K, p.36). Second, the case law supports a finding that the RICD promotes maximum utilization at 250 c.f.s. At 1500 c.f.s., the Applicant would be taking almost the entire flow of the stream to allow it to provide a reasonable boating experience, which could occur at a fraction of that requested flow and in fact, did occur in this specific reach without an RICD water right and without impact to other potential water users. (v. IV, p. 68). "[E]ach diverter must establish some reasonable means of effectuating his diversion. He is not entitled to command the whole or a substantial flow of the stream merely to facilitate his taking the fraction of the whole flow to which he is entitled." Colorado Springs v. Bender, 148 Colo. 458, 366 P.2d 552 (Colo. 1961), citing Schodde v. Twin Falls Land & Water Co., 224 U.S. 107 (1912); A-B Cattle Co. v. U.S., 589 P2d 57, 61 (Colo. 1978)(maximum utilization demands efficient use of water). "[T]he 24