Laserfiche WebLink
this Court must decide what limits should be imposed on those uses to prevent abuses of an <br />untried system. This Court did not have to consider the issue of reasonableness in reviewing <br />Fort Collins' appropriation because Fort Collins sought a minimal flow, rather than the <br />maximum flow, as sought by the Applicant here. In addition, the water courts in Divisions 1 <br />and 5 granted water rights with conflicting definitions of "reasonableness" and "waste," <br />which terms require uniformity of definition for future applications (i.e., those made under <br />SB 216). This Court's decision will hardly affect the Applicant (because the Applicant can <br />file a new application to obtain appropriately limited water rights under SB 216), but will <br />influence the future of Colorado water law. <br />ARGUMENT <br />I. Appropriations for recreational instream flows were not <br />authorized prior to SB 216 (2000), and therefore, the water court's <br />ruling in this case must be reversed. <br />The Legislature prohibited water rights for recreational instream uses prior to the <br />enactment of SB 216 in 2000, and the Whitewater Cases contradict the Legislative intent and <br />this Court's rulings on diversion. The water courts cannot and should not undertake the role of <br />the Legislature to make water law policy. As the Court stated more than thirty years ago, "[i]f <br />the increasing demand for recreational space on the waters of this state is to be accommodated, <br />the legislative process is the proper method to achieve this end." People v. Emmert 597 P.2d <br />1025, 1029 (Colo. 1979). This case presents exactly the need for legislative policymaking <br />described in Emmert. <br />R <br />