PUB00002

• Year: 2000
• Title: InStream Colorado - January 2000
• CWCB Section: Stream & Lake Protection
• Author: CWCB
• Description: InStream Colorado - January 2000 Newsletter
• Publications - Doc Type: Newsletter

........... ,..... t
ill(....................... i ~ r e ~ ....
~.:.:.:.:.. :.: ........... '-' ..,. "''''1

;liO lor et A 0

"rot.ction Prosr.....

Vol 3, ISS14. 1

J..n14"'lI 2000

Amendments to ISF law led to cooperation with all water users

Hfjl<>rSM>/e.' 71H> last issuedescIibed tm
dliYls i!,pFeIix SpJIis iY1d ollk>fl ,hill resulted in
tDeeslilblisJunenloflM ISF PRWdOJ..lJ
explained Ihill the G:uorJdoSupren;e COlU1
mkdin1Jr'llft~f1helSFProgrJm, i1hiudioglDe
Ok!mOO uSRI loqWDlo/ insLffltOJ Dow nC't'dson
die mSEolnsIJ. Tl1isissuedescribes someoll.lJe
i10Jendmenfs 10 tiJeISFstilfU1ei111d 1.IJeiIiJisLon
CHI signi1icJnce UIigin.uJy plJDDe.hs only J ","0-
PJIt s.enes;. we realized iJJere E ftJO mudJ aitiw
nisto./Y lOildeqWiefy Cilplure in just 'wv/Jmd~
TiJereJiJft;. wewillconfinueio.t."'OwrJiJistopiL'in
mf11reissuesafInStream Colorado. Agam. M
mustuedil:MatIJewMci:inney; wiJosedtXbJr.1i
dissertation provided DlucD oj"tl1e inlOI7l1ahan
presented here.

By Bahman Hatami
InStream Colorado Editor
AffJ.endmenlS Lo the insLream. .o...:"w law
in the mid-lOSOs opened the door to
cooperaLion wiLh the (ederalgovern-
ment and other water users.
The Colorado Supreme Court upheld
lhe conslilulionaliLy oflhe insLream. .D.ow
law in 1979 and afterward. pressure grew to
statutorily limitthe program. Opponents of
the program began taking their fight to the
Colorado General Assembly. However,
advo..:ales or inslrean1 o.o'r'r protection were
able to block such attempts. Several bills
were introduced to amend the program in
lhe 1981legislalive session. and lhe
in stream flow law was eventually amended
wiLh the enacLmenL or Senate Bill 414, a
compromise bill. Unlike many of the bills
that attempted to weaken the program, SB
414 strenglhened il by clarifying lhe respon-

~~1-.~l~L~~~ ~":Lt..~rTHrn ~_ __~L~__~_~L_~~__
MlIlllLL~ l!L un: "-- VY LO Ull1laKlIl~ lU~Lll:;HU
a0wappropriations.
The amendment specitled that any
in stream /low (ISF) approprialion is subjecl

to the following principles and limitations:
(1) any appropriaLion based upon
water imported from another water division
by somc other appropriator shall not
reslricllhat approprialor's use of water in
any way:
(2) any appropriation is subject to the
uses and exchanges of water being made by
other water USErs at the timc of appropria-
tion, whether or not such practices have
been (on[mned by court order or dec-ree;
(3) before initiating a water rights filing,
the CVlCB must determine that the nat ua
en vonmentwill be pre s ffed to a re a s c-
able degree by the water available for appro-
p r ition and that the environment can exist
without material in.iury to water rights; and

Photo courtesy of Bill Green

Headwaters of the La Plata River.

(1) nothing in the statute is to be con-
strued to allow condemnation by the sta te
or any person of Q3scments or rights otu,'3Y
across private lands to gain access to
streams or lakes with ISF appropriations.
This amendment helped defilse some
of the concerns and fcars of opponents to
lhe I:;P Program. lteusured lh.llSF righls
would not com.train the use of water
imported from one basin to another. The
amendmenl.also subl-..rdinaled inslream
flow rights to the existing wa ter uses and
exchanges, regardless of a courL decree.
Finally. in response to criticism that
the CWCB had simply been rubber-stamp-
ingDivision ofvVildlife recommendations,
SB .1H also specified that the (WCB must
evaluate the DOW's recommendaLions and
determine that the environment would be
protected without adversely affecting other
'r'raler righls.
By the mid-19S0s, a dramatic shifrin
attitude toward the program emerged.
Those who had opposed the program in the
past were now publicly praising its virtue.
Ivlany in lhe agliculluralcommunily began
to support the state program, and other
water users expressed their satisfaction with
lhe program dnd lhe need for slrong imple-
mentation.
This aLLiLude shm was in paIl due Lo a
growing recognition of the intangible and
economic side benefits (such .18 recreation
and lourism) ofColoradl.....'s free-lll"'wing
water~. But more importantly, water users
began Lo see the ISF Program as a Lool L0
argue against the federal government's
rl1ims to in<;trp,1m flows lImlf'f thf'ff"df"ral
reserved righls doctrine.
Water users in Colorado had growing
continued on page 3