Opening Brief - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the placement of rocks in the stream, the water is not diverted stored, or otherwise captured, possessed and controlled. Finally, while Fort Collins' appropriation involved two individual points of diversion for each water right claimed, Fort Collins 830 P.2d at 920, this application involves the appropriation of water between "specific points" for instream flows. The Legislature also has made clear that only the CWCB, not the Applicant, can obtain a "decree adjudicating a right to water or interests in water for instream flows in a stream channel between specific points, or for natural surface water levels or volumes for natural lakes, for any purpose whatsoever." § 37- 92- 102(3); id., at 930 (emphasis added). "If the increasing demand for recreational space on the waters of this state is to be accommodated, the legislative process is the proper method to achieve this end." People v. Emmert 597 P.2d 1025, 1029 (Colo. 1979). The Water court erred in granting the Applicant a right to an instream flow in direct contravention to the Legislature's intent in passing SB 216 and this Court's holding in Fort Collins II. In the Fort Collins decision, this Court did not authorize claims like this one for enormous recreational instream appropriations. Even if it had, such authority was expressly negated by legislation enacted after the date of the Fort Collins application, and therefore, the water court's ruling in this case must be reversed. As stated above, in 1973 and 1979, the Legislature and this Court, respectively, clearly expressed their intent that diversion was an "essential element" of water appropriations (except for the CWCB) until SB 216. SB 97; CWCB 594 P.2d 570. However, in 1986, Fort Collins applied for a water right for a traditional impoundment structure to be used for non - traditional purposes. This prompted the Legislature to pass another law clarifying its intent that only the 12