Laserfiche WebLink
Appellants, the Colorado Water Conservation Board ( "the CWCB ") and the State <br />Engineer and Division Engineer for Water Division 5 (collectively "State "), through the <br />Attorney General for the State of Colorado and the undersigned Assistant Attorney General, set <br />forth the following Opening Brief. <br />STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW <br />I. Appropriations for recreational instream flows were not authorized prior to SB 216 <br />(2000), and therefore, the water court's ruling in this case must be reversed. <br />II. In the Fort Collins decision, this Court did not authorize claims like this one for <br />enormous recreational instream appropriations. Even if it had, such authority was <br />expressly negated by legislation enacted after the date of the Fort Collins <br />application, and therefore, the water court's ruling in this case must be reversed. <br />III. In granting recreational instream flow appropriations, the water courts provided <br />conflicting definitions of "reasonableness" and "waste," which inconsistency must <br />be remedied by this Court. <br />STATEMENT OF THE CASE <br />This case is part of a trilogy of appeals before this Court. The water courts in these <br />cases have dramatically changed the uses of water in Colorado. This Court must determine <br />whether it the authority of the water courts or the Legislature to define those changing uses. <br />This Court first considered the primary issues presented by this case ( " Breckenridge ") <br />in the earlier appeal, State v. Golden, Case No. 01 SA252 ( " Golden "), and will review similar <br />issues in State v. the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District Case No. 02SA224 ( " Vail ") <br />