Laserfiche WebLink
<br />adjudicating water rights (which, in essence, is limited to considerations of water <br />availability and impacts on water rights).20 <br /> <br />The objectors in the case, including the National Wildlife Federation and a coalition <br />of West Slope water interests, based their challenge on three legal principles: <br />(1) because Colorado's constitution states that water is a public resource, the <br />public interest should be considered in its appropriation; <br />(2) the doctrine of "maximum utilization" requires a balancing of potential <br />environmental, economic, and social impacts against a project's benefits; and <br />(3) the public trust doctrine conditions the allocation of unappropriated water.21 <br /> <br />Judge Brown concluded that the legislature "'is the appropriate branch of <br />government to introduce, debate, and develop guidelines and standards'" regarding the <br />application of public interest values. He also noted that a "'day of reckoning is approaching <br />when the "public interests" raised by the opposers herein will have to be addressed in <br />proceedings adjudicating water rights,,,,22 <br /> <br />The Utah Supreme Court reached a contrary conclusion in Bonham v. Morgan, 788 <br />P.2d 497 (Utah 1989). At issue was a proposal to change the point of diversion and nature <br />of use of a water right. The objector challenged the transfer on several grounds, including <br />its potential environmental effects. The state engineer approved the application, <br />determining that he lacked authority to consider public interest impacts in transfer <br />proceedings. The court disagreed, and extended the public interest conditions applicable <br />to appropriation permits to transfers as well.23 <br /> <br />14 <br />