Laserfiche WebLink
commands the flow of the river, thereby precluding others from placing Colorado's precious water <br />resources to beneficial use through appropriation. <br />The Colorado courts and legislature have long recognized the potential dangers and abuses <br />associated with such in- channel uses and strictly scrutinized them. See, e.g., Colorado River Water <br />Conservation District v. Rocky Mountain Power Co., 406 P.2d 798 (1965) (holding that legislature <br />did not intend to allow district to appropriate water in a natural stream for piscatorial purposes <br />without a diversion). The legislature, in specifically limiting the appropriation of instream flows to <br />the Colorado Water Conservation Board ( "CWCB "), § 37 -92 -102, 10 C.R.S. (2001), clearly <br />recognized the potential for, and the harm associated with, flow appropriations of this nature. In fact, <br />in an effort to balance the "activities of mankind with some reasonable preservation of the natural <br />environment," the legislature limited the CWCB's ability to appropriate instream flows to the <br />"minimum stream flow" amount necessary to "preserve the natural environment to a reasonable <br />degree." (Emphasis added.) § 37 -92- 103(4), 10 C.R.S. (2001). Should private interests, with no <br />responsibility to the "public," be allowed to do what even the State can not do? Certainly, such an <br />outcome cannot be what the legislature intended in establishing the control requirement. <br />4. Additional "Non - Commercial" Filings Can be Anticipated. <br />Finally, affirmance of the Golden decree could lead to a host of filings by environmental <br />organizations, no- growth advocates and others intent upon maintaining existing flow volumes and <br />patterns and precluding any upstream development. Minimal investments in "structures" along a <br />C:\DATA\Pifher \Golden Appeal\Full Brief 2 -7 -02 glm.wpd 12 <br />February 7, 2002 (1:30pm) <br />