My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Case No. 02SA226 Reply Brief March 2003
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
5001-6000
>
Case No. 02SA226 Reply Brief March 2003
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/13/2012 10:30:46 AM
Creation date
7/12/2012 4:20:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Case No. 02SA226 Reply Brief March 2003
State
CO
Date
3/17/2003
Author
Schneider, Susan
Title
Case No. 02SA226 Reply Brief March 2003
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.
/
16
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
ARGUMENT <br />I. Until the Legislature specifically authorized recreational instream <br />flow water rights in SB 216, such uses should not have been <br />decreed. <br />The Appellee asserts, without any support, that SB 216 "reconfirmed" the Appellee's <br />right to obtain a recreational instream flow water right. (AB, p. 7). The legislative history <br />shows that the opposite is true. The Legislature decided against retroactive application of SB <br />216 to this and the Golden and Eagle applications4 not to reconfirm the law, but rather, as <br />"part of a compromise." (Transcript of hearing on SB 216 on May 8, 2001, attached hereto as <br />Exhibit 1, p. 2, Representative Witwer). Legislators recognized that they were "creating new <br />water rights" and "a change in water law," based upon applications for these "big huge water <br />rights" that the courts had not yet decreed.5 (Exhibit 1, pp. 1 -3, Representatives Plant, Young, <br />Jamison, Spradley). However, the Legislature was acting to prevent "a run on the courthouse" <br />for claims of "an entire river" if such recreational instream flows were eventually approved <br />by this Court. (Transcript of hearing on SB 216 on April 12, 2001, attached hereto as Exhibit 2, <br />p. 1, Senator Entz; Exhibit 1, p. 10, Representative Young). <br />4Case No. 01 SA252, State v. Golden ( "Golden ") and Case No. 02SA224, State V. Eagle River <br />Water and Sanitation Distri ct (`Eagle "). <br />5 "I think this bill in general is premature, we don't know if [it's] even a problem, yes [these] <br />big huge water rights have been requested, they haven't been granted yet. I don't think they <br />should be either, but I don't know we need this law to do the court's job" [in limiting such <br />rights]. (Exhibit 1, p. 2, Representative Madden). "This issue isn't even settled right now, <br />it's being adjudicated in Golden and we don't know what the decision is going to be ... This <br />[ "new right "] may not be even necessary — we don't know until the judgment comes down <br />from the case in Golden. (Exhibit 1, p. 1, Representative Plant). <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.