Trial Brief (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1987 Sess. Laws, 1305 -1306, ch. 269, § 2 (amending 37 -92- 102(3), C.R.S. (1973) (emphasis added). The legislature enacted SB 212 to reaffirm the principle that the CWCB was the only entity that can appropriate instream flows. 1987 Sess. Laws, 1305, ch. 269, § 1 (Legislative Intent Section). Other appropriators were still 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. (Exhibit B; and Written statement to the House Committee on Agriculture, Livestock, and Natural Resources, pp. 1,3 (between pages 5 & 6 of transcript of May 28, 1987 Hearing) (hereinafter referred to as "Exhibit C," as attached hereto)); see also Colorado Water Conservation Bd. 594 P.2d at 574. Senator McCormick (one of the co- sponsors of Senate Bill 97, which first authorized the CWCB to make minimum stream flow appropriations) sponsored Senate Bill 212. Senator McCormick expressed concern about cities filing for instream flows for recreation: Late in 1986 a city filed for preservation of minimum flows in the Poudre River through its municipal boundaries, assertedly for recreation and dilution of pollution.... This may only be the start of a rash of water rights filings by cities, organizations and individuals who, for some reason or other, wish to command the flow of streams for their own aims, without proceeding through the administrative and statutory provisions for an instream flow appropriation by the Water Conservation Board. (Exhibit C (written statement), p. 3 (emphasis added)). Senator McCormick also noted that, except for instream flows, water rights are appropriated by the use of diversion structures or dams. The chief concern about embarking on an instream flow program was that instream flow appropriations are designed to keep water in the stream, whereas Colorado water law encourages the maximum utilization of water