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
provision was intended to confirm that the riparian system, which was particularly ill- suited for <br />conditions in Colorado, did not apply in our state. Coffin v. Left Hand Ditch Co., 6 Colo. 443, <br />446 -47 (1882); Yunker v. Nichols, 1 Colo. 551 (1872); see also United States v. City & County of <br />Denver, 656 P.2d 1, 6 (Colo. 1982); Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Collard, 827 P.2d 546, 549 -50 <br />(Colo. 1992). Our semiarid climate and the markedly different conditions west of the 100th <br />Meridian required recognition of a new doctrine. United States v. City & County of Denver, 656 <br />P.2d at 6. Municipalities, agriculture, and industry throughout Colorado all depend on the <br />continued existence and availability of water from the rivers of this state. Id. at 7. <br />Almost from the beginning, the General Assembly has regulated the appropriation, <br />administration,. and adjudication of water to provide a water allocation and administration system <br />"that promotes multiple use of a finite resource for beneficial purposes," by fostering "optimum <br />use, efficient water management, and priority administration." Empire Lodge, 39 P.3d at 1146- <br />47 (citing Santa Fe Trail Ranches Prop. Owners Assn, 990 P.2d at 54). This Court has <br />recognized that the nature of a.. "diversion" required to appropriate waters of natural streams for <br />beneficial use and what constitutes a "beneficial use" are subject to regulation by the General <br />Assembly, as it has done in the 1969 Act by defining "appropriation," "beneficial use" and <br />"diversion." See, e.g., § 37- 92- 103(3), (4), (7), 10 C.R.S. (2003); Colo. River Water <br />Conservation Dist. v. Colo. Water Conservation Bd., 197 Colo. 469, 476, 594 P.2d 570, 574 -75 <br />(1979); City of Thornton v. Byou Irr. Co., 926 P.2d 1, 38 -39 (Colo.1996) (discussing General <br />Assembly's amendment of definition of "appropriation" to codify the anti - speculation doctrine <br />while carving out an exception for municipalities). And the General Assembly may delegate the <br />right to make appropriations for certain purposes to certain entities. Colo. River Water <br />Conservation Dist., 197 Colo. at 477 -80, 594 P.2d at 575 -77. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.