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) Whether exercise of the recreational in- channel diversion <br />would cause material injury to instream flow water rights <br />appropriated pursuant to subsections (3) and (4) of this section; <br />(V) Whether adjudication and administration of the recreational in- <br />channel diversion would promote maximum utilization of waters <br />of the state as referenced in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this <br />section; and <br />(VI) Such other factors as may be determined appropriate for <br />evaluation of recreational in- channel diversions and set forth in <br />rules adopted by the board, after public notice and comment. <br />§ 37- 92- 102(6)(a) and (b). The CWCB is then directed to report its findings to the water court <br />for review pursuant to section 37- 92- 305(13). The General Assembly directed that water judges <br />must apply the same factors, and the findings and recommendation of the CWCB are <br />presumptive as to such facts, subject to rebuttal. § 37- 92- 305(13);. Cf. Chatfeld East Well Co., <br />Ltd. v. Chatfield East Prop. Owners Ass'n, 956 P.2d 1260, 1266 (Colo. 1998) (noting that the <br />water court must apply the standards of the Groundwater Management Act, and must consult <br />with the state engineer and give presumptive effect to the state engineer's findings of fact.) <br />These factors, along with the limits on the size and scope of an RICD in the definition of <br />an RICD, which is then included in the definitions of "diversion" and "beneficial use," require <br />water judges to determine the allowable size and scope of a water right for RICD purposes. The <br />language could not be clearer: an RICD is limited to the "minimum stream flow as it is ... <br />placed to a beneficial use between specific points defined by physical control structures ... for a <br />reasonable recreation experience on the water." § 37- 92- 103(10.3); see Beeghly, 20 P.3d at 612- <br />13 ( "In determining statutory purpose, we first look to the language used by the legislature and <br />give words their commonly accepted and understood meaning. When the language is clear and <br />unambiguous, it may be presumed that the legislature meant what it clearly stated in the <br />statute. ") (citations omitted). <br />13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.