5-76W2720 Crystal River - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

qq* K.' COLO. R. W. CON. DIST. v. COLO. R. W. CON. BD. Colo. 575 Cite as, Colo., 594 P.2d 570 how the court as presently constituted might decide this issue, the opinion as there written is clearly distinguishable from the statute and claims here under consideration. The crucial consideration is that this court has never decided a case such as this on a constitutional basis. We overrule nothing in now holding that S.B. 97 is not unconstitutional in this respect. We admit that we are puzzled as to the reason the General Assembly placed this clause in the Act. Perhaps later circum- stances and cases may clarify our curiosity in this respect. We are not, however, puz- zled concerning our ruling as to what the General Assembly did not intend. It did not intend the construction urged by the Districts. II [2] The last sentence of Senate Bill 97 reads: "Nothing in this article shall deprive the people of the state of Colora- do of the beneficial use of those waters available by law and interstate compact." The Districts contend that the provision mentioning "waters available by law" means that later junior appropriators may have their rights adjudicated, which rights will be superior to those here decreed to the Colorado Water Board. Further, the Dis- tricts suggest that this wording means that the only awards the Colorado Water Board may receive are to water already adjudicat- ed to senior appropriators downstream. We do not agree with either of these two contentions. The legislative intent is quite clear that these appropriations are to pro- tect and preserve the natural habitat and that the decrees confirming them award priorities which are superior to the rights of those who may later appropriate. Other- wise, upstream appropriations could later be made, the streams dried up, and the whole purpose of the legislation destroyed. We simply cannot follow the logic of the second contention to the effect that the Colorado Water Board is entitled only to water already appropriated by downstream seniors. We fail to see how downstream appropriators are going to be affected by the Colorado Water Board's decrees, nor any reason for so circumscribing the effect of the legislation. The Water Judge stated: "There was no evidence that these appro- priations resulted in any people of the State of Colorado being deprived of the beneficial use of water. Until such time as a person is in fact deprived of the beneficial use of available water because of these appropriations the alleged harm is purely speculative and must be reject- ed." We approve of this statement as it relates to the deprivation of water available by "interstate compact." We have already spoken as to the remainder of the clause and see no need to comment on the Water Judge's statement as it related to "available by law." III [3] The third issue concerns the consti- tutionality of the legislative delegation of power to the Colorado Water Board. The Districts contend that the statutory lan- guage 7 empowering the Colorado Water Board to "appropriate . . . such waters of natural streams and lakes as may be required to preserve the natural environ- ment to a reasonable degree" is unconstitu- tionally vague and, therefore, an impermis- sible delegation of authority. Colo.Const., Art. III. The Districts correctly note that the is- sues of vagueness and delegation are con- sidered in Colorado as aspects of the same question. Fry Roofing v. Dept. of Health, 179 Colo. 223, 499 P.2d 1176 (1972). "The legislature does not abdicate its function when it describes what job must be done, who must do it, and the scope of his author- 7. The language appears in sections 37- 92- 102(3) and 37-92-103(3),(4) and (10), C.R.S.1973.