Laserfiche WebLink
If the language of section 37- 92- 103(10.3) were not clear enough, the legislative history <br />of Senate Bill 216, quoted at length in the Water Court's decision, demonstrates that the purpose <br />of the bill was to place reasonable limits on RICDs.5 In its "Legislative Statement,'.' the purpose <br />of the bill is described as: <br />to ensure that decrees for recreational in- channel diversions, as <br />recognized by the Colorado Supreme Court in the City of Thornton <br />v. City of Fort Collins case, are integrated into the state prior <br />appropriation system in a manner which appropriately balances the <br />need for water based recreational opportunities with the ability of <br />Colorado citizens to divert and store water under our compact <br />entitlements for more traditional consumptive use purposes, such <br />as municipal, industrial and agricultural uses. <br />App., S.B. 216 Legislative Statement. Thus, recognizing the need to divert and store water for <br />more traditional consumptive use purposes, the General Assembly limited a water right for RICD <br />purposes to "the minimum amount of water necessary to accomplish the appropriation." App., <br />4/12/01 Senate Committee Hearing at 3 -4 (R. Kuharich); see also id. at 33 (S. Bushong) (Senate <br />Bill 216 limits RICDs to "minimum flows") <br />The authors and proponents of the bill specifically intended to place such a limit on water <br />rights for RICDs so that water users could not obtain decrees for the entire flow of a stream, <br />thereby preventing future water development and inhibiting the maximum utilization of the <br />waters of the state. See App., 4/12/01 Senate Committee Hearing at 1 (Sen. Entz); id. at 23, 25, <br />27 (Rep. Paulson); id. at 38 (M. Pifher); 4/18/01 Senate Committee Hearing at 7 (Sen. <br />Anderson); id. at 22, 24, 27 (M. Shimmin); id. at 31 -32 (S. Sims); id. at 36 (P. Wells). Thus, the <br />legislature intended water courts to do precisely what the Water judge declined to do in this case, <br />i.e., determine the minimum stream flow required for a reasonable recreation experience. The <br />s The complete legislative history of SB216 is attached as an Appendix to this brief for the Court's <br />convenience. <br />14 <br />