Laserfiche WebLink
brief review of Colorado law prior to the General Assembly's <br />enactment of SB 216 as well as an overview of the bill itself is <br />instructive. <br />A. Recreational Diversions before SB 216 <br />Over ten years ago, we concluded that the "plain language" <br />of the statutory definitions of "diversion" and "beneficial use" <br />then in effect allowed the appropriation of water "by a <br />structure or device which either removes water away from its <br />natural course or location and towards another course or <br />location or which controls water within its natural <br />watercourse." City of Thornton v. City of Fort Collins, 830 <br />P.2d 915, 930 -31 (Colo. 1992) (referring to § 37 -92- 103(4), (7), <br />15 C.R.S. (1990)). Of course, the appropriated water must be <br />put to a beneficial use, though "[t]he type of beneficial use to <br />which the controlled water is put may mean that the water must <br />remain in its natural course." Id. at 931. The applicant in <br />Fort Collins we held, either removed or controlled the water <br />and put it to valid beneficial uses — "recreational, piscatorial <br />and wildlife uses, all valid under the [statute]." Id. <br />(referring to § 37 -92- 103(4)). <br />The implications of our holding in Fort Collins have been <br />the subject of considerable debate and disagreement both in the <br />General Assembly, see infra Parts III.A., III.B.2., and on this <br />Court. For example, after Fort Collins the communities of <br />0 <br />