Laserfiche WebLink
<br />197 Colo. 469, 594 P.2d 570 <br />Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. <br />COLORADO RIVER WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT and Southwestern Colorado Water <br />Conservation District, Objectors-Appellants <br />v. <br />The COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD, Applicant-Appellee, <br />Lee R. Enewold, Water Division Engineer, Division 5, Appellee, <br />and <br />The City of Aspen, Colorado, and the Board of County Commissioners of the <br />County of Pitkin, Colorado, Third Party Appellees. <br />No. 28407. <br />May 1, 1979. <br />Rehearing Denied May 21, 1979. <br /> <br />The Colorado Water Conservation Board applied for minimum stream flow rights <br />necessary for recreational purposes, fishery and wildlife, and water conservation districts <br />objected. The District Court, Water Division No. 5, Robert W. Ogburn, Water J., entered <br />decrees as requested by the applications, and the districts appealed. The Supreme <br />Court, Groves, J., held, inter alia, that the statute underlying the decrees was <br />constitutional and not void for vagueness. <br />Affirmed. <br />West Headnotes <br /> <br />[1] KeyCite Notes <br /> <br />405 Waters and Water Courses <br />405VI Appropriation and Prescription <br /> <br />405k128 k. Constitutional and Statutory Provisions. Most Cited Cases <br /> <br /> <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board may make in-stream appropriation without diversion <br />in conventional sense and statute permitting appropriation of water for recreational <br />purposes, including fishery or wildlife, was constitutional in that regard. C.R.S. '73, 37- <br />46-107(1)(j), 37-86-113, 37-92-102(3), 37-92- 103(3, 4, 10); 1969 Perm.Supp., <br />C.R.S., 148-21-3, 148-21-3(6); Const. art. 16, § 6. <br /> <br />[2] KeyCite Notes <br /> <br />405 Waters and Water Courses <br />405VI Appropriation and Prescription <br /> <br />405k133 k. Proceedings to Effect and Character and Elements ofAppropriation in <br /> <br />General. Most Cited Cases <br /> <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board, in establishing minimum stream flow rights under <br />Act providing for appropriation of water for recreational purposes, including fishery and <br />wildlife, did not err in not limiting awards to "waters available by law and interstate <br />compact." C.R.S. '73, 37-92-102(3), 37-92- 103(3, 4, 10). <br /> <br />[3] KeyCite Notes <br /> <br />