Laserfiche WebLink
Contrary to Appellee's repeated assertions, the State is not opposed to recreational <br />instream uses,2 but rather seeks a determination that it is the duty of the Legislature to <br />determine whether and under what conditions Colorado will allow recreational instream flow <br />water rights. "If the increasing demand for recreational space on the waters of this state is to be <br />accommodated, the legislative process is the proper method to achieve this end." People v. <br />Emmert, 5.97 P.2d 1025, 1029 (Colo. 1979). <br />Finally, the State agrees with the Appellee that the water right at issue: l) is a <br />valuable asset that provides economic benefit to the Appellee, in part because of its ability to <br />subordinate that water right to other uses;3 2) should cause no injury to senior water users if <br />administered properly; 3) probably benefits the environment; and 4) in part, provided the <br />impetus for the Legislature to incorporate recreational instream uses into a traditional <br />diversionary system. However, these facts do not provide the legal basis for a recreational <br />instream flow water right — only the Legislature can establish the basis for a recreational <br />instream flow water right. Thus, the only issue is whether the Legislature had enacted <br />legislation specifically allowing water rights for recreational instream flows before SB 216. <br />Because it did not, the water court erred in granting such rights. <br />2 I fact, members of the CWCB sought to introduce the legislation recognizing recreational <br />instream flows and supported the final legislation as passed. (Exhibit 2, pp 2 -6). <br />3 A part of the decree in Case No. 02SA224 ( "Eagle "), the recreational instream flow water <br />rights would be subordinated to municipal and snowmaking uses. Thus, in Division 5, this <br />right similarly may be subordinated by agreement. <br />2 <br />