My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Case No. 01SA252 Brief of Amici Curiae February 2002
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
5001-6000
>
Case No. 01SA252 Brief of Amici Curiae February 2002
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/13/2012 10:27:38 AM
Creation date
7/12/2012 4:20:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Case No. 01SA252 Brief of Amici Curiae February 2002
State
CO
Date
2/7/2002
Author
Robbins, David W.; Montfomery, Dennis M.; Wells, Patricia L.; Lawrence, Kim R.; Maynes, Frank E.; Dingess, John M.; Miller, Lee E.
Title
Case No. 01SA252 Brief of Amici Curiae February 2002
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.
/
30
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
the definitions of "diversion" and "beneficial use" in the Water Right Determination and <br />Administration Act of 1969, §§ 37 -92 -101, et. seq. 10 C.R.S. (2001). Beginning with the <br />passage of the Colorado Instream Flow Law in 1973, Colo. Sess. Laws 1973, Ch. 442, codified <br />at §§ 37 -92- 102(3) & (4), 37- 92- 103(4), 10 C.R.S. (2001), the Colorado legislature has carefully <br />limited the appropriation of water for instream flow purposes. These careful limitations are <br />necessary because rights for instream flows could prevent the future development of waters to <br />which the state of Colorado is equitably entitled under interstate compacts and decrees of the <br />U.S. Supreme Court. <br />In authorizing the appropriation of instream flows to preserve the natural environment, <br />the General Assembly carefully limited the amount of such appropriations to the minimum flows <br />between specified points on natural streams that are required to preserve the natural environment <br />to a. reasonable degree. § 37- 92- 103(4), 10 C.R.S. (2001). The General Assembly has vested the <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board with the exclusive authority, on behalf of the people of the <br />state of Colorado, to make 3h appropriations and has stated that no other person or entity shall <br />be granted a decree adjudicating a right to water for instream flows "for any purpose <br />whatsoever." § 37- 92- 102(3), 10 C.R.S. (2001). The General Assembly further provided the <br />admonition that nothing in article 92 of title 37 shall be construed as authorizing any state agency <br />"to deprive the people of the State of Colorado of the beneficial use of those waters available by <br />law and interstate compact." Id. See also §§ 37- 81- 101(1)(a) and (b), 10 C.R.S. (2001) <br />(legislative declarations regarding the transportation of water resources into another state). <br />The Supreme Court in its decision in City of Fort Collins v. City of Thornton, 830 P.2d <br />915 (Colo. 1992), held that controlling water in its natural course or location by a structure or <br />device for recreational boating or fishery and wildlife purposes might be a beneficial use. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.