My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04SA44 Amici Curiae Brief
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
7001-8000
>
04SA44 Amici Curiae Brief
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/10/2015 10:33:01 AM
Creation date
4/10/2014 12:02:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Amici Curaie brief from the Rio Grande Water Conservation District in support of CWCB in the Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District's RICD Case No. 02CW038.
State
CO
Basin
Gunnison
Water Division
4
Date
7/26/2004
Author
Rio Grande Water Conservancy District
Title
04SA44 Amici Curiae Brief
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Court Documents
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
IV. ARGUMENT <br />A. The Water Court's Decision is Contrary to the Intent and Purpose of Senate Bill 216 <br />"Scarcity and value of the water resource has always driven Colorado water law; <br />accordingly, the state's policy is to efficiently manage, administer, and optimize water for <br />operation of as many decreed uses as there is available supply." Farmers Reservoir and Irr. Co. <br />v. City of Golden, 44 P.3d 241, 245 (Colo. 2002) (quoting Farmers Reservoir and Irr. Co. v. <br />Consolidated Mutual Water Co, 33 P.3d 799, 806 (Colo. 2001)); accord Board of County <br />Comm'rs v. Crystal Creek Homeowners' Ass'n, 14 P.3d 325, 333 (Colo. 2000) ( "Colorado policy <br />seeks to optimize the beneficial use of all available waters of the state. "); City of Thornton v. <br />BYou Irr. Co., 926 P.2d 1, 85 (Colo. 1996) ( "[T]he water right administration system developed <br />by the General Assembly focuses on alleviating scarcity by `maximizing the beneficial use of all <br />the waters of this state and preserving the value by protecting vested rights in state waters. "') <br />(citations omitted)). The water judge's disregard for the limits imposed by the General <br />Assembly on the size and scope of a water right for an RICD ignores the General Assembly's <br />clear intent to further this important policy. <br />A court's fundamental task in construing a statute is to determine and give effect to the <br />legislature's intent in enacting the statute. Double RL Co. v. Telluray Ranch Props., 54 P.3d <br />908, 910 (Colo. 2001); Empire Lodge Homeowners' Ass'n v. Moyer, 39 P.3d 1139, 1152 (Colo. <br />2002); Beeghly v. Mack, 20 P.3d 610, 612 (Colo. 2001). In doing so, the court "should give <br />effect to each word and construe each provision in harmony with the overall statutory design, <br />whenever possible." Empire Lodge, 39 P.3d at 1152 (citing City of Florence v. Bd. of <br />Waterworks, 793 P.2d 148, 151 (Colo. 1990)). In addition, the court should "consider the <br />General Assembly's course of action and intent when enacting, amending, and repealing <br />statutes." Id. "A construction of statutory language that creates doubts as to the constitutional <br />10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.