Laserfiche WebLink
A profound change in Colorado water law came in 1973 when the Legislature crafted <br />Senate Bill 97 ( "SB 97 ") to deviate from what had previously been considered a <br />constitutionally based diversion requirement. SB 97 carved a narrow exception to the <br />diversion requirement to allow the CWCB to appropriate instream flows to protect <br />Colorado's natural environment and to satisfy the need for some water to remain instream. <br />This Court upheld SB 97, but ruled that this exception did not indicate "any erosion" of the <br />prior case law "holding that a diversion is an essential element of the water appropriations" <br />in Colorado for other appropriators. Colorado River Water Conserv. Dist. v. Colorado Water <br />Conserv. Bd. 594 P.2d 570, 574 (Colo. 1979) (hereinafter " CWCB "). Thus, while the <br />change was profound, and in effect granted the CWCB what before had been considered a <br />riparian right (a right to water continuing to flow instream), the right was limited to prevent <br />abuses and ensure fair and measured instream uses. <br />Another subtler shift began in 1986, when the City of Fort Collins applied for a <br />modest water right for a traditional dam impoundment structure that was used to provide safe <br />boat passage. The Legislature immediately reacted to the 1986 application in its 1987 <br />legislative session to prevent copy -cat applications or expanded applications, such as Golden <br />Vail and Breckenridge that claimed the maximum amounts of water flowing from bank to <br />bank for instream uses. Thus, the Legislature, specifically targeting recreational floating <br />uses in the stream, enacted Senate Bill 212 ( "SB 212 ") to prevent any entity, other than the <br />CWCB, from obtaining water rights for instream uses for any purpose whatsoever. <br />11 <br />