Trial Brief Case No. 02CW38 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the CWCB would be the appropriate body to ensure maximum utilization. (April 18, 2001 Senate Hearing, p.37, attached hereto as Exhibit G). Second, the case law supports a fmding that the RICD promotes maximum utilization at 250 c.f.s. because that amount of water prevents the Applicant from commanding the whole or a substantial flow of the stream merely to facilita.te its taking the fraction of the whole flow to which it is entitled under section 37-92-103(10.3) ("the minimum stream flow"). "[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, citing Schodde v. Twin Falls Land & Water Co., 224 U.S. 107 (1912). "The policy of maximum beneficial use is derived from an understanding that the waters of Colorado are a scarce and valuable resource." Sta.te Engineer v. Castle Meadows, Inc., 856 P.2d 496, 505 (Colo.l993). The principle "that the right to water does not give the right to waste it" constitutes the foundation for any effective integration of maximum utilization with the law of vested rights. City and County of Denver By and Through Bd. of Water Com'rs v. Consolidated Ditches Co. of Dist. No. 2, 807 P.2d 23, 34 (Colo. 1991); citing § 37-92- 103(4), C.R.S. (1990)(beneficial use is amount of water that is reasonable and appropriate under reasonably efficient practice to accomplish purpose of appropriation without waste)(emphasis added). A-B Cattle Co. v. U.S., 589 P.2d 57, 61 (Colo. 1978)(maximum utilization demands efficient use of water). "[T]he objective of `maximum use' administration is `optimum use. "' Matter of Rules Governing Water in Rio Grande and Conejos River Basins, 674 P.2d 914, 935 (Colo. 1983). 11