Laserfiche WebLink
• <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 />371, 416, 399 -403, 445 -446). <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 (such as municipal <br />and snowmaking); and no administrative or statutory limits or provisions for an instream <br />flow appropriation. This Court must not allow the Applicant to obtain a water right that <br />conflicts with the Legislature's clear intent to prevent recreational instream flows until SB <br />216. Therefore, this Court should dismiss this case. <br />IV. Because recreational water rights had never been .recognized, there <br />were no administrative rules, statutory guidelines, objective tests or <br />diversion requirements to prevent inconsistent rulings and <br />monopolistic appropriations. <br />The Appellee argues that its water right should not be limited. (AB, p. 18). However, <br />all legislatively or court sanctioned water rights are limited. The requirement that water be <br />physically diverted from the stream created physical limits on the amount of water that could <br />be appropriated, Denver v. Northern Colo. , Water Conservancy Dist., 276 P.2d 992, 998 <br />(Colo. 1954), and ensured maximum utilization. CWCB, 594 P.2d at 573. Under SB 216, <br />10 <br />