Laserfiche WebLink
rendering it inappropriate to consider legislative history in interpreting the statute. See, e.g. City <br />of Aurora v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 919 P.2d 198, 200 (Colo. 1996).6 <br />More importantly, this Court expressly applied SB 212 in Fort Collins and expressly <br />rejected the same argument now being made by the State. The original 1986 City of Fort <br />Collins application was for "in- stream flows." Fort Collins, 830 P.2d at 919 -20. As the State <br />notes, it was in that context that SB 212 was proposed and then passed in 1987. State's Br. at 4. <br />However, the State fails to disclose that after the Bill passed, the Fort Collins amended its <br />application in 1988 claiming water rights for the Nature Dam and the Power Dam's boat chute <br />and fish ladder. Id. at 920 -21. Accordingly, SB 212 was applicable to the amended application <br />and, contrary to the State's repeated assertion, was expressly considered in Fort Collins. <br />Specifically, this Court considered the SB 212 revisions to § 37- 92- 102(3) which clarify <br />that "exclusive authority [is] vested in the CWCB to appropriate minimum stream flows." Id. at <br />930. In doing so, the Court rejected the "exclusive authority" argument now made by the State, <br />easily distinguishing between the CWCB's right to acquire minimum in- stream flow water <br />6 Even if this Court reviews the legislative history of SB 212, it supports the interpretation that <br />the rights requested by Breckenridge are not in- stream flow rights. Senator Harold McCormick, <br />the sponsor of SB 212, stated in his written statements regarding SB 212: <br />[T]he General Assembly passed a law redefining the term "appropriation" in order to <br />require that an appropriator must "divert, store, or otherwise capture, possess, and <br />control" water to have a valid appropriation, except for the Water Conservation Board, <br />C.R.S. 37- 92- 103(3)(a) and 37- 92- 305(9)(a). This was done to make it clear that only the <br />Board can make an unharnessed use of the stream, in the name of the people of the state <br />as a whole. All others must_ harness a portion of the waters of a stream for a <br />specified use. <br />Written Statement at 2 (first emphasis in original; second emphasis added); see App'x E. Thus, <br />according to the legislation's sponsor, the difference between an in- channel diversion and an in- <br />stream flow right is that an in- channel diversion "harnesses" water. <br />Sb 1546 -16- <br />