Laserfiche WebLink
Dist. V. Colorado Water Conservation Bd. 197 Colo. 469, 473, 594 <br />P.2d 570, 573 (1979). There the Court based its decision <br />upholding the constitutionality of Colorado's instream flow <br />program on a carefully crafted statute enacted as a result of <br />deliberations by the elected representatives of the people. <br />In 1979, one month after this Court upheld the instream <br />flow statute, the Legislature adopted the "capture, possession, <br />and control" requirement by amending, through Senate Bill 481, <br />the definition of "appropriation" and statutory provisions <br />governing the "standards for rulings" by referees and water <br />judges, 1979 Colo. Sess. Laws, ch. 346 attached as Appendix 1. <br />In 1987, the General Assembly enacted Senate Bill 212, 1987 Colo. <br />Sess. Laws. ch. 269 attached as Appendix 2, reiterating its <br />intent that only the Water Conservation Board can appropriate <br />instream flows. Thereby, the Legislature has required strict <br />scrutiny of applications which are speculative or riparian in <br />nature or which could injure development of Colorado's compact <br />and equitable apportionment entitlements. <br />One can understand the desire of boaters for <br />recreational flows, see Hobbs & Raley, Water Rights Protection in <br />Water Quality Law 60 U. Colo. L. Rev. 841, 882 n. 219 (1989), <br />but the creation of a recreational waters program for Colorado <br />should be addressed by the General Assembly, not the Courts. On <br />several occasions this Court has recognized that the Legislature, <br />through the minimum stream flow law, has determined how <br />environmental concerns are to be integrated into the prior <br />appropriation doctrine; this is primarily a legislative, not a <br />-4- <br />