Laserfiche WebLink
principles accepted by the Division 4 Water Court are permitted to stand, these efforts are at <br />great risk. <br />III. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT <br />The Recreational In- Channel Diversion statute, Colo. Sess. Laws 2001, Ch. 305, codified <br />at §§ 37 -92- 102(5) & (6), 37- 92- 103(4), (7) & (10.3), 37- 92- 305(13) through (16), 10 C.R.S. <br />(2003) ( "Senate Bill 216 "), was passed in 2001 to establish standards and reasonable limits <br />whereby the water courts — with the assistance of the Colorado Water Conservation Board — <br />could determine water rights for recreational in- channel diversions ( "RICD ") consistent with the <br />state's policy to maximize the utilization of the state's water for beneficial uses. Both the <br />language and history of the statute evince a clear intent to place reasonable limits on the ability <br />to obtain a water right for recreational in- channel diversion purposes to ensure that Colorado's <br />scarce water resources remain available for beneficial consumptive uses to the extent allowed by <br />our compact entitlements and that the beneficial use of water will be maximized, consistent with <br />long - established Colorado water law principles. The distinction between recreational flows (and <br />minimum flows to protect the environment, for that matter) as a beneficial use and the more <br />traditional consumptive beneficial uses is an important one if Colorado is to obtain the full <br />benefit of the apportionments it has obtained through its interstate compacts. The water judge <br />erroneously ruled on the Applicant's application based on a misunderstanding of the Colorado <br />Constitution and the General Assembly's power to define "diversion" and "beneficial use." The <br />Water Court must limit the Applicant's claim concerning the size and scope of a water right for <br />RICD purposes to the minimum stream flow required for a reasonable recreational experience. <br />Z <br />