My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. Colorado Water Conservation Bd. 1979
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
5001-6000
>
Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. Colorado Water Conservation Bd. 1979
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/13/2012 9:11:24 AM
Creation date
7/12/2012 4:20:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. Colorado Water Conservation Bd. 1979. No. 28407 May 1, 1979 No. 28907
State
CO
Date
5/1/1979
Title
Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. Colrado Water Conservation Bd. 1979
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Court Documents
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
OCT-07 - ;003 14:43 FROM-DOL NATURAL RESOURCES 3038663558 T -562 P.003/008 F -774 <br />594 P.2d 570, Colorado River Wcucr CotisurvaLloll Dist. v. Colorado Water cotlservanoll lid., (Colo. Page 3 <br />1 979) <br />Crystal River from bs vontluence with C arbum:ae <br />Creek (near Marbic) to irs coiillticnce with <br />Avnlaneht Crock (bejow Redstone). and dtr third <br />(Nu. 3) mch&dca tttc Crystal River front its <br />coniluc.nce with Av41xic-lic Cree -k to its contluenix <br />with the RuIritig Fork River. 'I'lic Colorado Water <br />Bu:tied :ukLQ :lthd W:lS granted the following awards: <br />C ahtc Fret PUT Schad uCTiTTR: <br />----------------------------- <br />Ocwbier 1 to April 30 May I to September 30 <br />No. 1 10 22 <br />No, 2 40 so <br />Nu.3 60 1Ut) <br />[197 Cola. 473.1 Following tbo enactment of Senate <br />Bill 97 The Colorado Water l3oard requested <br />rccorrimcndauons from the Colorado Division of <br />Wild Lite (DOW) nail the Colorado Division of <br />Parks and Outdoor Rcrrcadon (DPOR). Alice <br />snaking studies DOW submitted its recommendation <br />to the Colorado Water 130ara for water flows for <br />mainretnaiice of fisheries. The DPOR did not tnakc <br />a separate study, but advised the Colorado Water <br />Board that it concurred in the recommendations of <br />DOW and drat it had determiiied that the inininium <br />flows rcc;ommcndud by DOW wore ;idcquatc for <br />other parks and outdoor rucrcation purposes. <br />piiereafter, the Colorado Water Board filed its <br />applications. UN41) <br />The Dtstrwts urge 111E followishg four argumenTS; <br />I. Srnazu hill 97 is uni:nnslitadunal, and iite <br />decrcrd priorities :rru void, ht�cauae a requirenierlr <br />of a physical diversion is absum. <br />11. The water court erred in not limiting the <br />awards To "Waters avallable by law and imtrstaie <br />Compact. " <br />111. Senate Bill 97 is unconstitutionally vague and <br />males all inlp :rmissible delegation of legislative <br />authority to the Water Board. <br />1V. The Water l3o4rd failed to establish the <br />quantify of water necessary to "preserve the <br />natural environment to a reasonable decree." <br />III Hiswrtcally, with little exception it has been <br />the Attu that all appropri:ltlon i5 to br made by (1) <br />divurirng the wntcr and (2) phicing it to a beneficial <br />use. A diversion ha, bccn eortvOntiunally cunsidcn.d <br />the act of tatting water from a stream and <br />transporting it to anuTher location for use. until the <br />legislature ill 1969 specifically madr diversion an <br />css4nlial clement u1, approprtauutt, QFNSI) <br />Diversion was a s:ourr -tnadt cicmum. Fxatnplcs of <br />this pr,uciplE are to be found is the footnote. ([FN6 <br />1) <br />-+573 As to appropriation of water, The Colorado <br />COUStitutton uses the word ''divert" only once; and <br />Ilet'e it was not used to mandate an essential clement <br />of an appropriation. `T'lic sole time it appears is to <br />water is in Colo.Cortst. Art. XVi, s 6: "The righT to <br />divert. the unappropriated waters or [197 Colo. 4741 <br />any natural strcatn to beneficial tides sliall ncvcr be <br />denied." The reason and thrust liar this provision <br />was to negate any thought Thar Colorado Would <br />follow the riparlatl doctrine in the acquisition and <br />use of W4WT, In 1983, early in the history ol' this <br />sratr, this court in Thomas v. Guiraud, 6 Colo. 5301, <br />rejected tho argument That Guiraud's appropriation <br />was invalid bccausu he had constructed no ditchu,i. <br />T..css than thrcc years later in I- altmcr Co, v. T.uncc, <br />8 Colo, 614, 9 P. 794 (1886), we find this court <br />saying: <br />"'1'lle maxiin, Bxpressio unius csT cxcjusin a1writts, <br />is liere invoked. It is claimed that when the <br />constitution recognl2ES The right to 1ppr0p631c <br />wtuur by diversion, it VXL:14d0S the appropriation <br />thereof in any other planner. Further, that the <br />word 'divert' ►nuns To Taku or carry it away from <br />the bed or channel of Tliv -,cream; that therefore <br />respondent's acT of tti ltzing �t natural reservoir its <br />the bcd of rho strcam, and thus storing surplus <br />waxer for fuTUrt! use, not being; a diversion in vhc <br />sense of rho constitutional provision oiled, is in <br />cOnfllcT therewith. <br />"We are not prepared to conc�:de the cilrrcetness of <br />t:ounsel'a pu."ition. It is our opinion that Ell(: above <br />is not the most natural and reasonable view to <br />adopt cuncerning the meaning of the consli1xion. <br />The ward 'divert' inusT tic interpreted in <br />connection with the word 'appropriation,' and with <br />other language used in The retraining sccticins of <br />Thar instrument referring to the Subject of <br />& 2003 West, a Thomson business. No claim uh original U.S. Govt_ works. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.