Laserfiche WebLink
hundred kayak courses. The real concern of the State and Northern is the type of use — <br />recreation. The State's parade of horribles were addressed in more detail in the Golden case and <br />are not repeated here. <br />What renders the State and Northern's arguments all the more dubious is that the same <br />arguments were already made to the General Assembly. The General Assembly did not outlaw <br />such water rights or limit them to a trickle of water as urged by the State, but instead, <br />acknowledged the validity of such water rights, while imposing new procedures and new factors <br />for the Water Court to consider in future applications. The District incorporates herein <br />Breckenridge Brief § V.E. that explains: (i) the history of the CWCB's efforts to change the <br />existing law during a break in the Golden case by proposing SB 216; (ii) the legislature's <br />modification of SB 216 before passage and the factors set forth in SB 216 to be considered for <br />future applications; (iii) subsequent rule- making proceedings by the CWCB where it rejected the <br />same arguments that it now makes; and (iv) the fact that the four pending RICD applications <br />(including the District's) were exempted from the new law which is expressly applicable only to <br />applications filed after January 1, 2001.5 <br />In short, the passage of SB 216 renders the State and Northern's policy arguments moot. <br />Indeed, these very concerns, such as injury to compact entitlements, are factors that will be <br />considered in future applications, as they were expressly considered in this case. See Decree at 6- <br />7. Accordingly, the District contends it would be wrong for this Court to reverse Fort Collins or <br />limit the legislative definition of "diversion" on policy grounds. See Bd. of ColMly Comm'rs, <br />'The State has also argued that because the Legislature grand- fathered existing applications from <br />the new requirements of SB 216, such existing applications are now unlawful. This issue was <br />addressed in the Golden case and is not repeated here. <br />Sb1549 -23- <br />