Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />analysis of tools is not to suggest change for the sake of change <br />alone, but rather to identify for public discussion the means avail- <br />able to achieve specified ends. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />The study's analysis of tools has involved the examination of <br />numerous possibilities. Insofar as legal (i.e., statutory and con- <br />stitutional) tools are concerned, only a few were eliminated from con- <br />sideration at the outset: <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />a. The water study does not consider or analyze the possibility <br />of a constitutional amendment that would abrogate the right <br />to appropriate water. The reason for this exclusion is that <br />most of the surface water in the state is already covered <br />by final or conditional appropriations, and such a change <br />would be largely irrelevant. However, while the study does <br />not consider abrogation or elimination of the right to <br />appropriate, numerous other changes are examined, some of <br />which would limit or condition appropriative rights. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />b. Similarly, the water study does not consider shifting to an <br />administrative permit system for the initial appropriation <br />of water. The reason for this is the long'6tanding tradition <br />of a judicially based system. However, the study does con- <br />sider various changes which would apply to applications for <br />changes in water rights. Some of these changes would give <br />greater authority to state or local government, or would <br />give greater latitude to the water court. An example would <br />be the establishment of new criteria which water courts <br />could use in reaching their decisions. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />c. The water study does not consider "forced" reallocations of <br />water by government edict, condemnation, or order; and no <br />wholesale reallocations of existing water rights are con- <br />sidered. The study does look at ways to encourage or dis- <br />courage certain types of reallocations or transfers. Because <br />of current water use patterns, and the realities of market <br />economics, it is assumed that most, if not all, future water <br />transfers out of existing uses will come from irrigated agri- <br />culture; and the tools considered tend to be those that <br />might slow, accelerate, or otherwise modify such transfers. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />ADDITIONAL LEGAL ANALYSES <br /> <br />There are important legal issues concerning the benefits and <br />obligations of water rights under Colorado law which are not easily <br />included in the classification of legal tools set forth above. None- <br />theless, they are extremely important and of significant interest to a <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />16 <br /> <br />I <br />