5-76W2720 Crystal River - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

lam 570 Colo. 594 PACIFIC REPORTER, 2d SERIES Accordingly, the trial court's award of the conditional water storage right is af- firmed insofar as it affects water to be used on the appellee's owned or leased land, and reversed in all other respects. PRINGLE, J., does not participate. w o S l,lm...1'1"E T COLORADO RIVER WATER CONSER- VATION DISTRICT and Southwestern Colorado Water Conservation District, Objectors-Appellants V. The COLORADO WATER CONSERVA- TION BOARD, Applicant - Appellee, 1. Waters and Water Courses e-128 Colorado Water Conservation Board may make in- stream appropriation without diversion in conventional sense and statute permitting appropriation of water for recre- ational purposes, including fishery or wild- life, was constitutional in that regard. C.R.S. '73, 3716- 107(1)(j), 37 -86 -113, 37- 92- 102(3), 37 -92- 103(3, 4, 10); 1969 Perm. Supp., C.R.S., 148 - -21 3, 148- 21 -3(6); Const. art. 16, § 6. 2. Waters and Water Courses *-133 Colorado Water Conservation Board, in establishing minimum stream flow rights under Act providing for appropriation of water for recreational purposes, including fishery and wildlife, did not err in not limit- ing awards to "waters available by law and interstate compact." C.R.S. '73, 37 -92- 102(3), 37 -92- 103(3, 4, 10). Lee R. Enewold, Water Division Engineer, Division 5, Appellee, and The City of Aspen, Colorado, and the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Pitkin, Colorado, Third Party Appellees. No. 28407. Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. May 1, 1979. Rehearing Denied May 21, 1979. The Colorado Water Conservation Board applied for minimum stream flow rights necessary for recreational purposes, fishery and wildlife, and water conservation districts objected. The District Court, Water Division No. 5, Robert W. Ogburn, Water J., entered decrees as requested by the applications, and the districts appealed. The Supreme Court, Groves, J., held, inter alia, that the statute underlying the decrees was constitutional and not void for vague- ness. Affirmed. 3. Waters and Water Courses X128 Statute permitting appropriation of water for recreational purposes, including fishery and wildlife, was not unconstitu- tionally vague and did not make impermis- sible delegation of legislative authority to Colorado Water Conservation Board. C.R.S. '73, 37 -92- 102(3), 37 -92 -- 103(3, 4, 10). 4. Waters and Water Courses X143 Colorado Water Conservation Board, in exercising its authority under statute per- mitting appropriation of water for recrea- tional purposes, did not inadequately dis- charg.o its duty of establishing quantity of water necessary to "preserve the natural environment to a reasonable degree." C.R.S. '73, 37 -92- 102(3), 37- 92- 102(3, 4, 10). Delaney & Balcomb, Kenneth Balcomb, Scott Balcomb, Glenwood Springs, for ob- jectors- appellants Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. Maynes, Bradford & Duncan, Frank E. Maynes, Durango, for objectors - appellants Southwestern t Dist. J. D. MacFarl Hennessey, Dep Donovan, Sol. G� cial Asst. Atty. 1 appellee The Cc Bd. Musick, Willi: worth & Cope, Leavenworth, B. Boulder, for thir of Aspen, Colo. Com'rs of the C; Ruth M. Wrig N: riae, , League of Musick, Williar .r. worth & Cope, Schwartz, Bould Open Space Cou tion, Nat'l Wildl cil of Trout t Council, Crystal tection Ass'n. GROVES, Jus This case invc ' the Colorado V' ,� (Colorado Watc stream flow rigl referred to as S the General Ass - rado River Wate the Southwester - trict (the Distri _ judge entered d applications. Tl affirm. The first threE as they appear i 442, at 1521 an. "Section 1. Colorado Rev Supp.), are arr. "148 -21-3. ation' means po rtion ei the 1. Codified as sut 92- 103(3), (4) ar 2. Colo.Sess.Law!