My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Trial Brief (2)
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
5001-6000
>
Trial Brief (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/15/2010 1:24:29 PM
Creation date
7/7/2010 2:44:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Case No. 00CW259 Vail RICD and Case No. 00CW281 Breckenridge RICD
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
4/1/2002
Author
Ken Salazar, Susan Schneider, John Cyran, Shana Smilovits
Title
Trial Brief
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Court Documents
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
for a variety of beneficial uses which normally involve the placement of <br />dams and diversion structures in streams. <br />(Exhibit C (written statement), p. 1, (emphasis added)). <br />At the hearing on SB 212, Representative Paulson expressed concern that other <br />entities were claiming instream flows for uses such as recreation without having to divert <br />or store the water. He stated: <br />The unfortunate circumstance we find today in 1987 is that people have <br />usurped the original good public purpose of allowing the Conservation <br />Board to make appropriations on behalf of the public in general to enhance <br />and protect the environment and are now filing instream water rights for <br />any number of purposes not on behalf of the people of the state of <br />Colorado, but in many instances for purposes that range all the way <br />from a flow for recreation purposes for their own even [though] they <br />don't own the land or the riparian rights, to other purposes such as <br />blocking the construction of water projects. <br />(Transcript of House Committee on Agriculture, Livestock, and Natural <br />Resources, June 4, 1987 (emphasis added) hereinafter referred to as <br />"Exhibit D," as attached hereto). <br />Representative Paulson also stated: <br />If you have an instream flow water right where there's no diversion <br />involved and there is no requirement of the showing of the attempting to <br />use that water and capture it you will have the entire gambit of <br />speculation thrown open again because there will be no objective test to <br />figure who's sincere and who's really trying to come up with a valuable <br />water right. (Exhibit D, p. 5 (emphasis added)). <br />Former Senator Fred Anderson, who co- sponsored the original instream flow <br />legislation, testified that the original legislation was intended to prevent bank -to -bank <br />appropriations by entities other than the CWCB: <br />Now as I sponsored that bill along with Senator McCormick, Senator <br />Kenny, Senator DeBerard, all the rest of them that were on this and there <br />were about fifteen sponsors, it was to be a minimum stream flow because <br />we were worried that somebody might come along and want a bank - <br />to- bank type appropriation which would create havoc all the away (sic) <br />down the stream." (Exhibit C, p. 38 (emphasis added); <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.