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
validity of the legislation should be assiduously avoided if an alternative construction consistent <br />with legislative intent is available. "4 Perry Park Water & Sanitation Dist. v. Cordillera Corp., <br />818 P.2d 728, 732 (Colo. 1991); accord Colo. Ground Water Comm 'n v. Eagle Peak Farms, <br />Ltd., 919 P.2d 212, 221 (Colo. 1996); City of Greenwood Village v. Petitioners for Proposed <br />City of Centennial, 3 P.3d 427 at 440 (Courts "do not lightly declare a statute unconstitutional "). <br />Both the history leading up to the passage of Senate Bill 216 and the legislative history of the bill <br />establish that the General Assembly intended to place reasonable limits on the size and scope of <br />water rights for RICD purposes to prevent them from being used to tie up the entire flow of the <br />river or a substantial portion thereof for extreme recreational uses that would frustrate the <br />optimum use of water for other beneficial uses. <br />The genesis of the current controversy can be traced to this Court's 1992 decision in City <br />of Thornton v. City of Fort Collins, 830 P.2d 915 (Colo. 1992). There, this Court for the first <br />time held that controlling water in its natural course or location by a structure or device can be a <br />"diversion" within the meaning of section 37 -92- 103(4). Id. at 929 -30. Reading this decision as <br />recognition of in- channel flow rights for recreational purposes so long as the water was <br />controlled in its natural course, the communities of Golden, Vail, and Breckenridge filed <br />applications seeking_ decrees for in- channel flow rights for kayak courses. These rights were <br />granted by the water courts and eventually affirmed as a matter of law based on 3 -3 votes in this <br />Court. See State Eng. v. City of Golden, 69 P.3d 1027 (Colo. 2003); State Eng. v. Eagle River <br />Water and Sanitation Dist., 69 P.3d 1028 (Colo. 2003). <br />' This presumption in favor of constitutionality means that a party challenging a statute on constitutional <br />grounds must prove unconstitutionality "beyond a reasonable doubt." City of Greenwood Village v. Petitioners for <br />Proposed City of Centennial, 3 P.3d 427, 440 (Colo. 2000). <br />11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.