Laserfiche WebLink
In reviewing Fort Collins' application, this Court reiterated that water that continues <br />to flow in the channel in a manner similar to an instream flow is not a right that can be <br />appropriated by any entity other than the CWCB. Fort Collins 830 P.2d at 932. While the <br />Court recognized that "[a] dam certainly qualifies as a structure or device" that may control <br />water within the stream, nothing in that case suggests that ungrouted rocks arranged within a <br />pre- existing CWCB instream flow could constitute diversion, control, storage, capture or <br />possession under sections 37 -92- 103(7) or 37- 92- 305(9)(a), C.R.S. (2001). The water in the <br />Whitewater Course maintains its status as an instream flow because the water continues to <br />flow freely, bank to bank, just as it did prior to the rock placement. <br />Despite SB 212 and the fact that Fort Collins received a minimal appropriation, all the <br />Applicants in the Whitewater Cases applied for instream flow water rights for recreational <br />uses for virtually the entire hydrograph — that is, all of the water still available on each <br />affected stream reach. With the possibility that the Legislature's clear intent to prevent these <br />expanded applications would be thwarted by the water courts, the Legislature again reacted. <br />This time, while explicitly acknowledging that recreational uses are beneficial to the State, <br />the Legislature passed Senate Bill 216 ( "SB 216 ") in 2000 to prevent excessive applications, <br />to provide limits and procedures to prevent abuses, and to ensure reasonableness and <br />maximum utilization. <br />Until the passage of SB 216, there was clearly no right to recreational uses in the <br />stream. However, if this Court is to determine that, despite the Legislature's intent to <br />prohibit these uses before- SB 216, private recreational instream water rights were allowed, <br />5 <br />