Trial Brief (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Anderson also expressed concern to the House Committee about bank -to- bank appropriations that might arise after the Fort Collins filing. (Exhibit D, pp. 34 -35). While SB 212 did not apply in Fort Collins based on the facts of that case, it does apply to the instant case. The CWCB is the only entity that can appropriate water for instream flows in a stream channel between specific points or for natural surface water levels, for any purpose whatsoever. The Applicants are subject to the long - standing diversion requirement or the requirement that the water be controlled in its natural course or location by storage in the streambed for later diversion or impounded for recreation. (Exhibit C, written statement, pp. 1, 3; see footnote 4); see also Colorado Water Conservation Bd. 594 P.2d at 574. The Applicants did appropriate water for an instream flow for recreational purposes. SB 212 made it clear that such an appropriation was impermissible. The Applicant's appropriation was exactly what the legislature was trying to prevent -- an instream flow by an entity other than the CWCB. IV. THE FORT COLLINS DECISION DOES NOT SUPPORT THIS TYPE OF INSTREAM FLOW In Fort Collins the boat chute and fish ladder structure concentrated the flow of the river in a narrow channel of the river to allow boaters to pass safely through a stretch of the river previously unnavigable. See Fort Collins 830 P.2d 915. The Fort Collins boat chute was a notch in a dam that focussed the water into the boat chute at low flows. Id. If the water "continues to flow as it did prior to the renovation" of the dam, then the water was not controlled and the appropriation would have been an instream flow. Id. at 932. To effectuate control, boat chutes must "concentrate the flow of water," not merely create whitewater features. Id. at 932; (v. 6, pp. 42 -44). The Fort Collins dam shows that