Laserfiche WebLink
MAR -27 -2002 17:08 FROM -DOL NATURAL RESOURCES 3038663558 T-711 P- 005/0O9 F -015 <br />based on the same argument already raised, litigated and rejected by the Supreme Court in Fort <br />Collins That conclusion is binding precedent in this matter. <br />It is worth noting that the Supreme Court's holding in Ft. Collins with respect to SB 212 <br />was an affirmation of the water court's decision on that same issue. The District Court for Water <br />Division 1 that first considered the 1988 amended application at trial held, "Senate Bill 212 did <br />not change the law in any way and did not add any new law, but merely clarified the existing law <br />... [and] has no relationship to the case." Decree, Case No. 86CW371, District Court for Water <br />Division No. 1, ¶ 38, attached hereto as Exhibit 2. <br />3. There is no ambiguity in the statute, and thus no basis to refer to the legislative <br />history. <br />The State's entire argument is premised on its selective and self- serving reading of the <br />legislative history behind SB 212. That bill, however, and the change it made to § 37 -92- 102(;), <br />unambiguously applies only to claims for in- stream flows to preserve The natural environment. <br />As the Supreme Court held in Ft_ Collins, it clearly does not apply to appropriations for diversion <br />structures in the stream channel, Id. at 930 -31. Where the statute is unambiguous, it is improper <br />to consider the legislative history or other indications of legislative intent because the plain <br />language of the statute itself is the clear manifestation of that intent. See, ,ems., City of Aurora v. <br />Bd. of County Comm'rs 919 P.2d 198, 200 (Colo. 1996). <br />4. The legislative history indicates that SB 212 was not a change in the law, and does <br />not apply to in- channel diversions. <br />If, despite the foregoing, the Court is inclined to consider the legislative history of SB <br />212, it should conclude that the legislature did not change Colorado water law via SB 212, and <br />that the legislation was not intended to prohibit in- chanmel diversions by a structure or device. <br />The only evidence of legislative intent referenced by the State are statements made by the <br />Ph0454 -4- <br />