Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />HOLLAND & HARTLLP <br />ATTORNEYS AT LAW <br /> <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board <br />July 25, 2003 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />the statute, one of which is litigation "to defend and protect Colorado's <br />allocations of water in interstate streams and rivers." C.R. S. 9 31 -60- 12 1 <br />(2.5)(a) (III). None of the other statutory criteria which relate to federal claims <br />and actions is even remotely relevant to the Upper Gunnison's water rights <br />case. <br /> <br />As eXplained above, Colorado's water courts have uniformly found in <br />decisions upheld by the Colorado Supreme Court that recreational in-stream <br />water rights result in no adverse impact to Colorado's allocations under <br />interstate compacts. See, e.g., the Water Court Decrees in Case Nos. 98CW448 <br />(Water Div. I), 00CW281 (Water Div. 5); and 00CW259 (Water Div. 5). Just <br />like an in-stream water right for hydroelectric power production, no water is <br />consumed by use in a boating course under an RICD water right, regardless of <br />where the boating course is located, and the water is available for re-use <br />downstream. In light of the findings of the Water Courts and the non- <br />consumptive nature of these water rights, it is not proper for the Attorney <br />General's Office to claim that public money from the litigation fund is <br />necessary "to protect Colorado's compact entitlements" from the Upper <br />Gunnison's water rights claim or any other valid claim for a recreational or <br />RICD water right. <br /> <br />The CWCB was given specific responsibilities involving RICD water <br />rights in Senate Bill 01-216. The CWCB holds a public hearing and makes <br />recommendations to the water court on RICD applications. The CWCB has <br />done so in the Upper Gunnison case. The CWCB is also authorized to defend <br />its findings through participation in the water court proceedings. But there has <br />been no authorization from the General Assembly for use of monies from the <br />reserved rights fund or the other litigation fund for this purpose. Funding for <br />such participation must come from other sources. <br /> <br />Further expenditures by the CWCB of public money from its litigation <br />funds in opposing RICD water rights claims on the basis that they threaten <br />Colorado's compact entitlements are not permitted by the governing statutes <br />and should not be allowed. We urge the CWCB to decline any request of the <br />Attorney General's Office to do so. Thank you for your consideration of these <br />comments. <br />