Opening Brief - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Based on these facts, the CWCB found that a flow rate of 250 c.f.s. from May to September would be the "minimum stream flow" necessary for a"reasonable recreation experience" and would promote maximum utilization and not impair compact entitlements. (Findings and Recommendations of the CWCB, p. 2, attached hereto as Exhibit C). After a week-long trial, the Water Court issued an order on December 26, 2003, rejecting the CWCB Findings and Recommendations and granting the full 1500 c.f.s. claimed.' (Order, Exhibit A). In its Order, the Water Court held that it would not "intervene to usurp" or "second guess" the Applicant's "determination of the size and scope" of an RICD. (Exhibit A, p. 19). The Court erroneously held that "(t]o preclude an Applicant from determining precisely the size and scope of any recreational in channel diversion would appear to infringe on the Constitutional right to appropriate." (Exhibit A, p. 19). The State is appealing the Water Court's order pursuant to C.A.R. 1(e). ISSUES PRESENTED WHETHER THE WATER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT LIMITATIONS ON THE SIZE OF RECREATIONAL INSTREAM WATER RIGHTS INFRINGE ON THE CONSTITUTION; H. WHETHER THE WATER COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO LIMIT THE REQUESTED RICD TO A"MINIMUM STREAM FLOW," AS REQUIRED UNDER SB 216; 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 ' The Water Court did uphold the CWCB determination that there could be no water right for fishing uses decreed, although it recognized that fishing could be an incidentaTuse. (Decree, p. 5, attached hereto as Exhibit D). This holding was necessary because there was no evidence showing how the RICD structures were constructed to provide such uses and how the flows claimed could enhance, much less affect, such uses. 3