Laserfiche WebLink
prevent "speculation" caused by allowing instream flows "for recreation purposes" <br />without having to "use that water and capture it" "because there will be no objective test <br />to figure who's sincere and who's really trying to come up with a valuable water right." <br />(v. II, p. 392). The legislators specifically rejected the concerns of recreational users that <br />SB 212 would prevent recreational instream water rights. (v. II, pp. 375-379). <br />The legislative history is replete with such statements, but SB 216 also clearly <br />shows that Fort Collins is not applicable to this case. <br />II. THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF SB 216 SHOWS THAT THE <br />APPLICANT IS LIMITED TO THE MINIMUM STREAM FLOW <br />NECESSARY FOR A REASONABLE RECREATION EXPERIENCE. <br />The Legislature passed SB 216 in response to the Golden, Vail and Breckenridges <br />applications, just as it passed SB 212 in response to Fort Collins' claim. Yet, the <br />applicant argues that the "plain language of SB 216 shows that the legislature explicitly <br />recognized and affirmed the key Fort Collins holding" and that this Court should <br />continue to determine these applications in the same manner as all other pre-216 <br />applications. (Closing Brief, pp. 8-12). In fact, the opposite is true. <br />As stated above, the Legislative history shows that the General Assembly passed <br />SB 212 to prevent Fort Collins-type appropriations, and then, in attempt to prevent <br />Golden-type appropriations (though not yet recognized)6, passed SB 216 to limit and <br />regulate these new water rights. <br />$ State Engineer v. Golden, 69 P.3d 1027 (Colo. 2003); State Engineer v. Eagle River Water & Sanitation <br />District, 69 P.3d 1028 (Colo. 2003); State Engineer v. Breckenridge, 69 P.3d 1028 (Colo. 2003). <br />6"I think this bill in general is premature, we don't know if [iYs] even a problem, yes [these] big huge <br />water rights have been requested, they haven't been granted yet. I don't think they should be either, but I <br />don't know we need this law to do the court's job" [in limiting such rights]. (Exhibit 1, p. 2, <br />Representative Madden). "This issue isn't even settled right now, it's being adjudicated in Golden and we <br />don't know what the decision is going to be ... This ["new righY"] may not be even necessary - we don't <br />know until the judgment comes down from the case in Golden. (Exhibit 1, p. 1, Representative Plant).