Opening Brief

• Description: Case No. 02SA226, Breckenridge
• State: CO
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Water Division: 5
• Date: 1/17/2003
• Author: Ken Salazar, Susan Schneider
• Title: Opening Brief
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Court Documents

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ............... ..............................1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................. ............................... l
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ......................................................... ............................... 3
ARGUMENT.............................................................................................. ............................... 6
I. Appropriations for recreational instream flows were not authorized prior to SB
216 (2000), and therefore, the water court's ruling in this case must be
reversed........................................................................................... ............................... 6
A. Water must be physically diverted in Colorado to constitute diversion,
capture, possession and control ..................................................... ............................... 7
B. A water right for recreational instream uses constitutes an instream flow,
which only the CWCB can appropriate . ................................................................ :.... 10
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 .............................................................................. .............................12
A. The Legislature reacted to Fort Collins' application with legislation
reiterating that only the CWCB could appropriate water for uses instream .............. 13
B. This Court upheld Fort Collins' minimal water right application for a dam
impoundment structure that diverts, captures, possesses and controls water,
but the Fort Collins holding cannot be extended to approve rocks in a stream
used to create waves or an appropriation of a water right for virtually all of
the water in the stream ................................................................. ............................... 14
III. In granting recreational instream flow appropriations, the water courts
provided conflicting definitions of "reasonableness" and "waste," which
inconsistency must be remedied by this Court ............................... .............................16
A. This Court must set a duty of water for recreational instream uses in order to
ensure reasonableness and maximum utilization and to prevent waste,
speculation, and monopolies ....................................................... ............................... 16
B. This Court must provide a uniform definition of the reasonableness of the
amounts claimed for recreational instream uses ......................... ............................... 17
C. This Court must provide a uniform definition of "waste" for recreational
instreamuses ................................................................................ ............................... 19
i