Trial Brief - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

addressed in City of Fort Collins despite the applicants' efforts to fit these square pegs into that round hole. C. The Fort Collins Decision Was Limited By the Legislature. In response to the 1986 Fort Collins application, the legislature passed Senate Bill 212 ( "SB 212 ") in 1987. Senator McCormick, Senator Anderson and Representative Paulsen, whose statements were completely unrebutted by the Applicants, stated repeatedly that SB 212 was being passed to prevent anyone other than the CWCB from appropriating water for use in the channel, and to prevent the type of subjective bank -to -bank recreational appropriations of all the water in the stream, such as is sought here. The Legislature specifically considered, but rejected, the pleas of recreational users who opposed SB 212 because "it poses a serious threat to River Water Outfitters throughout the state," and could "cripple" recreational uses and the tourist economy. (May 28, 1987 Hearing, page 31). The recreational users also argued that the CWCB should not have the "exclusive authority to appropriate instream flow water rights" which are "critical for river outfitters" because "[f)or river runners, beneficial use represents instream flows." (Id.) As the boaters noted, SB 212 "singles out river outfitters as being prohibited to secure water rights to maintain their occupation and employment." (Id., p. 32). The concerns of Senator McCormick, Representative Paulson, and Senator Anderson seem especially prescient when in light of the applications in these matters. The applicants are seeking "bank -to -bank" appropriations for all the water in the stream on the basis of rock formations. These applications cannot be granted in light of the history of Colorado water law, the case of Fort Collins and the obvious and undeniable intent of the legislature to prevent this type of right. D. If the Court finds these Structures Similar to the Power Dam in Fort Collins the Amount Must be Limited in a Manner Consistent with that Decision. boulder formations should be considered to be diversion structures if the applicants can prove the formations fimction as designed. Such an argument, however, confuses two different requirements - -the diversion requirement, and the beneficial use requirement. The applicants must satisfy both these requirements. First, the applicants must prove the boulder structures control water. In addition to this first requirement, the applicants must prove the boulder structures beneficially use water, and thus fimction as designed. 4 (Transcript of House Committee on Agriculture, Livestock, and Natural Resources, June 4, 1987; Legislative History, SB 97 Hearings Before the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Livestock, and Natural Resources, February 5, 1973).