Laserfiche WebLink
water right for a traditional impoundment structure to be used for non - traditional purposes. <br />(Exhibit B, attached to Opening Brief). Thus, the Legislature enacted SB 212 in 1987 <br />specifically to prevent both a proliferation of Fort Collins -type appropriations and any <br />possible "erosion of the diversion requirement" for entities other than CWCB. (Id.). <br />In enacting SB 212, the legislative record shows concern that other entities would try <br />to "command the flow of streams for their own aims, without proceeding through the <br />administrative and statutory provisions for an instream flow appropriation by the Water <br />Conservation Board" and, that without such administrative and statutory guidelines or <br />"objective test[s]," there would be "speculation" and bank -to -bank appropriations. (v. II, pp. <br />392; 375 -379; 378 -382). <br />Despite this clear intent, each of the concerns addressed by the Legislature in enacting <br />SB 212 is present in the Appellee's application. This application seeks to command the <br />entire flow of a stream; from bank to bank; with no objective test as to reasonableness or <br />duty of water; no limits on use or on selective subordination to other uses; and no <br />administrative or statutory limits or provisions for an instream flow appropriation. This <br />Court must not allow the Applicant to obtain a water right that conflicts with the <br />Legislature's clear intent to prevent recreational instream flows until.SB 216. Therefore, this <br />Court should dismiss this case. <br />10 <br />