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

Home Browse Search

594 P.2d 570, C0101-a10 River Water Cunscl -'V eon Dist. v. Colorado Water Consorvation Bq., (Colo. Page 8 1979) cunstilulion permits appropriations liir buTi ftcial uses that Flo riot '¢378. entail diversions. This qucs601i hats hccn answered above in part 1. The parties' stipuldoon establishes Asst rho Colorado Water hoard slid rcquusi rccorimcnJuduns from DOW and DPOR. The tact ih;it PPOR adopted tlic recommendations of DOW without making an indepenclem study sloes not show that t}te Colorado Water Board did nor make the requests recluircd by Sedate Bill 97. Thus, the Districts' second allegation is also without merit. The third allegation has been considcrcd in part 11 above. The final allegaiion also related to a Mauer already discussed itl part 11f. As natcd, tlu C0lardd0 Water Board determined than appropriauon ut the uummum Vows necessary to preserve curtain fish species also would SuffiCC to maintain the rest of the natural enviroiunem, This determination was bawd on the Colorado Water Board'$ considerations, including review [197 Colo. 4811 of DOW's reperrs and DPOR'} comments. The Districts have not slwwu that the Colorado Water Board's cnnelusion wad ;it all unfounded or arbitrary. We conclude Mat The Colorado 'Water Board Ofd abide: by the tcrrris of its delegated authority ui emtabb,,hing The quantity of water nrceaaary to accomplish the purposes of SLnatc Bill 97. Judgment affirmed. LEE and CARRIGAN, U., do riot participate (FN I.) Codified as subsuctiuns 37 -92 102(3) Lind 37 -92. 103(3), (1) and (10), C.R.S. 1973. (FN2.) Colo.Sess.Laws 1973, ch. 442, at 1521. (FN3.) Capital 1rlCura indicate Ttcw material, and clashes through words indicate r)rleiiom,. (FN4.) The Ntatcritcrit was made at oral argLAmew That other similar applicanons have been filed by the WatcF Board as to other sircalms. (FN5.) 1969 Pcrm.Supp., C.H.S.1963, 118- 21 -3(6) (FN6.) Lamont v. Riverside District, 179 Colo. 131, 498 P.2d 1150 (1972): Colorado River District v. Rocl y MOUniain Power Comp any, 158 Colo. 331, 406 P 2cl 798 (1956); TDcnver v. Millar, 149 Colo. 96, 368 P.2d 982 (1962); Denver v. Northern Colorado District, 130 Colo_ 375, 276 P.2d 992 (1954); and Board of CtmtmisAuners v. Rocky Mnuntain Watcr Company, 102 Cnln. 351, 79 P.2d 373 (1938). (FN7.) The language appear, in sections 37 -92- 102(3) and 37 -92- 103(3), (1) and (10), C.R.S. 1973. (FN8.) Giordano, supra, concerncd sanitary regulation, prutn.ulgatecl by the Colorado Department of Health; and Swisher, supra, was interpreting the Colur:ulu Agricultural Marketing Apt ui 1939 which eMploycd such Terms as "orcicrly marketing ", "uniform grading" and "economic waste." (b 2003 West, a Thomson business. No claim to original U.S. Govt. works.