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
preventing changes of water rights and exchanges that may be necessary to satisfy the growing <br />water needs of Colorado's citizens. See Farmers Res., 44 P.3d at 245 n.2. <br />C. Nothing in the Colorado Constitution Prevents the Water Court from Limiting the <br />Amount of Water Granted for an RIM <br />The Water judge's refusal to limit the size and scope of the RICD claimed by the <br />Applicant for its kayak course was based on his conclusion that such limits would infringe on the <br />right to divert guaranteed in the Colorado Constitution. While recognizing that the ultimate goal <br />is to maximize uses consistent with Colorado's interstate compact obligations, the Water judge <br />refused to apply the limits contained in section 37- 92- 103(10.3), holding that "[t]o preclude an <br />Applicant from determining precisely the size and scope of any recreational in channel diversion <br />would appear to infringe on the Constitutional right to appropriate." Findings of Fact, <br />Conclusions of Law and Order at 19. This reasoning reflects a misunderstanding of the General <br />Assembly's power to define the terms "diversion" and "beneficial use." <br />The fallacy in the Water judge's reasoning can be exposed by extending it to its logical <br />conclusion. If the constitutional right to appropriate prevents a water court from limiting the size <br />and scope of an RICD as determined by the applicant, it must also preclude the General <br />Assembly from limiting RICD water rights to governmental entities. Likewise, the General <br />Assembly could not limit the appropriation of minimum flows between specific points to <br />preserve the natural environment to a reasonable degree to the Colorado Water Conservation <br />Board. The General Assembly can impose such limits because it has the power to define the <br />terms "diversion" and "beneficial use within reasonable limits, and can limit the class of <br />appropriators who may appropriate water for certain purposes. <br />The Colorado Constitution states that "[t]he right to divert the unappropriated waters of <br />any natural stream to beneficial uses shall never be denied." Colo. Const., art. XVI, § 6. This <br />17 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.