Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. Colorado Water Conservation Bd. 1979

Home Browse Search

OCT -07 -2003 14:45 FROM -DOL NATURAL RESOURCES 3038663558 T -562 P.007/008 F -774 ' 594 P.2d 570, Colorado River Water ComerVario l Dist. v. Colorado Water Cotl,crvativa Bd., (Colo Pagir 7 1979) We Lbink that the Districis' inicrhrctatioll of "naitiral" is strainea. The Cwneral Assembly clearly intended to have the Ci lur4do Wancr Boarcl preserve various 1tle forms. To &:onsidier the introduction of dcairablt: file ruins as improper sulistitMt:S lirr former fish species that nLI lungvr exist, woulcl inhibit of The legislative goal. In adLinirn ul Lhv contention that The term " natural environment" is vague, the Districts object to the Gcncral ASSelllbly'S failurr To define what it meant by the +577 phrase "io a reasonable degree." In this regard, we now a conclusion reached in Fry Roofing, supra : ''la cases doling with other areas of legitilriatc legislative activity where precision wa-s dcterminca to be impossible . . . such brutal standard, as 'reasonable' and 'necc»ary' have been Cound SL1rfiCicrlt as standards, although incapahlc of precise dclini Lion ." This describes ilie type of situation we arc here considering. As indicat&d above, precision of the type which the Di5lriCTS espouse would be impracticable under The circumstances. For cxatmplc, the Districts urge that the General Assembly could )lave mandated preservation or the ''existing envirnntllcnT" and achieve the degree of specificity required by The constitution. The present staruTc, however, sleets consTiwtional standards to permit leeway to proceed rationally in light of factual aiudies which might r;haw than certain existing life forms would require inordinate support to A117ML We conclude that the General Assembly has established "what job must be done" Willi SLIfficienT clarity. It also has naswered "who must do it" si►1ce it is specifically rile Colorado Water Board whii:h is authorized to appropriate waters to accomplish ilia legislative purpose. It has sufficiently described the ScOPL: nl Lbe C4lnrad0 W4Lor 50ard's authority_ Thus, under the standard adopted in Swisher, supra, and followed in succeeding casos, Senaiv Bill 97 is not void for vagueness, nor an improper dviegatiun of legislative authority. Thu Districts also eumplain of the Colorado Water Board's activities in accomplishing its delegated duties. As mentioned, DPOR did not make an independent study, but suha*TCd that the minimurn flows for fish woulcl he aQequaie to preserve the reinaindcr 01 llle 114ttll'31 c11Vil'011111cnT. 'ITht: Culoraau W,11cr 80111'cl adopted the xs -s11111ptin11 LhAL, in order to prorect the criviruTMILnt ul a rv.,sonable degrer, it would be Su l riciUnt iu [ 197 Colo. 001 appropriate minimum Ilows ffix would Taaintain Lhc existing aqualit: habital find related fish producrioll. Nowhere is it shown that such an assunlpiioil was unfounded or irrational. The ColuraSu Water B(,ard made the ;sssumprion on the basis of an exwnsivc report by DOW and ou The strengrh of DPOV,; C011chisio115 char the iltiuinuuu flows recornmcndcd by DOW were adegi,arc lbr other parks and outdoor reCJ'ratloll 11UrpOSCS. It is to be pre,umcd that talc Colorado Water Board parried nut its duty under the starutc. Colorado Springs v. District Court, 184 Colo. 177, 519 P.2d 325 (1974). That assumption must stand in the absence of evidence That there is nu rational conacciiort between preservation of existing fish species and related fish prnduutinn by minit11un1 ,cream [lows and preservation of rac natural env i roilmcnr. We find the appellant's arguments as to the impropriety of t11e delegation unmeritorious. 1V 141 Finally, The Districts contend that the Water Board has not abided by the wrms or ifs dcicgatcd authority in establishing The quantity of water necessary to ''preserve The natural eiMroiuneitt to a rcdsonable degree." They make four allegations in -support of this contention: (1) that the beneficial uses contemplated are not such as would support an appropriatio,i under ilia constitution; (2) that illc Colorado Waicr Board did not comply with the statutory rcquiremcni that it rcqucsr recommendations from DPOR and DOW; (3) That t11e Colorado Water Board failed to show that it complied with [lie requirerrienl that its appropriations not "deprive die people of the State of C:uluraan or the beneficial use of Those waters available by law and inicrsiaTe compact "; and (4) that the Colorado Water Board acted only to preserve fish life rather Than the entire natural environment as The statute rCquires. Regarding; tau first point, the Districts concede Thai the insweam users couternplared are indeed betleiu:ial. They only 1.luestron whether the �,�) 2003 Wcsr, a Thomson business. No claim To original U.S. Govt. works.