Laserfiche WebLink
H. This Court Has Never Authorized a Right to Appropriate <br />Recreational Instream Flows. <br />In the Fort Collins decision, this Court did not authorize claims like this one for <br />enormous recreational instream appropriations. Even if it had, the Legislature enacted SB <br />212 after Fort Collins applied for its water right, in order to negate explicitly any such <br />authority 9. (v. II, pp. 374, 392, 375 -382). Neither Fort Collins nor the Legislature granted the <br />right to unlimited recreational instream flows. Thus, this Court must reverse the water <br />court's ruling granting such rights. <br />The Appellee would have this Court believe that recreational water rights are part of <br />"long- standing case law" and that "[t]his Court expressly upheld recreational boating as a <br />beneficial use in Fort Collins...." (AB, pp. 7, 15, emphasis added, citing 830 P.2d at 932). To <br />the contrary, this Court did not even imply in Fort Collins that the• "increasing demand for <br />recreational" instream uses was being accommodated by that opinion, and indeed, Appellee does <br />not and cannot supply any language from Fort Collins to support its reference to such "express" <br />holding by this Court. In light of the extreme importance and novelty, of recreational instream <br />water uses, such a holding cannot be read into the Fort Collins case. This Court cannot have <br />intended to effect a reversal of all prior case law and allow recreational instream uses without <br />9Trout Unlimited ( "TU ") argues that because the Fort Collins application was amended after <br />SB 212 was enacted, "the amended application, upon which the opinion was based, was filed <br />after the enactment of the legislation," and thus SB 212 governed the Fort Collins <br />application. (TU, AB, p. 7). This Court, however, found that "the 1988 amendments [to Fort <br />Collins' application] relate back to the 1986 application." Fort Collins, 830 P.2d at 923. Thus, <br />unless specifically stated, it cannot be presumed that this Court was retroactively applying a <br />1987 law to a 1986 application. Shell Western E &P, Inc. v. Dolores County Bd. of Com'rs, 948 <br />P.2d 1002, 1011 (Colo. 1997). <br />n <br />