Laserfiche WebLink
judicial function. See R.J.A., Inc. v. Water Users Ass'n of <br />Dist. No. 6 , 690 P.2d 823, 828 (Colo. 1984); Matter of Rules & <br />Regulations Governing Use, Control & Protection of Water Rights <br />674 P.2d 914, 935 (Colo. 1983); Southeastern Colorado Water <br />Conservancy Dist. v. Shelton Farms, Inc. 187 Colo. 181, 191, 529 <br />P.2d 1321, 1327 (1974). <br />Colorado recognizes impoundment of water for recreation <br />as a beneficial use for which an appropriative water right can be <br />obtained. C.R.S. S 37- 92- 103(4); In re May 756 P.2d 362 (Colo. <br />1988). However, the integration of instream recreational flows <br />into Colorado's prior appropriation system is a similar <br />legislative challenge and prerogative to that which the General <br />Assembly faced in fashioning the Colorado Water Conservation <br />Board Program. Instream recreational water demands potentially <br />involve much greater volumes of water than the "preservation of <br />the environment to a reasonable degree" criteria by which the <br />Water Conservation Board currently makes appropriations. In <br />addition to its status as an agency of the State, publicly <br />accountable for its actions, the CWCB has expertise and a <br />programmatic commitment not shared by private appropriators. The <br />Court recognized this point in Colorado River Water Conservation <br />Dist. v. Colorado Water Conservation Bd. 197 Colo. at 478, 594 <br />P.2d at 576: <br />The legislative objective is to preserve <br />reasonable portions of the natural <br />environment in Colorado. Factual <br />determinations regarding such questions as <br />which areas are most amenable to preservation <br />and what life forms are presently flourishing <br />or capable of flourishing should be delegated <br />-5- <br />