Laserfiche WebLink
<br />" <br /> <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board <br />Page 5, <br /> <br />." <br /> <br />for the 'administration of water rights. <br />Filings for appropriations by the board <br />,shall be consistent with other appropria~ <br />tions'and with the requirements of this <br />article. <br /> <br />(Emphasis added.) <br /> <br />The legisl.tive tapes for Senate ,Bill 91 confirm that the bill's <br />sponsors speeifically sought to encourage the federal government <br />to go through the Bo.rd's public process arid follow Colorado <br />-~ ,..... 'wat'e'r' court procedures to appropriate instream flow,s for wilder- <br />ness areas. Co-sponsor Senator Martha Ezzard,statedrepeatedly <br />that the purpose of the bill was to prevent federal preemption of <br />Colorado water rights an~ to use the,state system to provide <br />water for wilderness areas., She expressed the hope that there <br />would be complementary fede,ral wilderness legislation stating <br />that the Colorado process would be respected. That is exactly <br />what S. 10~9 would do. <br /> <br />'in 1987, Senate Bill 212 'again a~ended section 102(3), reaffirm- <br />ing 'the General Assembly's intent that only the Board could be <br />gr,anted a decree adjudicating a right to' instream flows and add- <br />ing the provision allowing the Board to enter into contracts hav- <br />ing enforceable terms and conditions with persons, including "any <br />gove'rnmental entity, "'.'from which it was acquiring water, water <br />rights, or interests in water. The legislative history of Senate <br />Bill' 212, including a written statement by co-sponsor Senator <br />Harold McCormick, shows ,that the General Assembly recognized that <br />the United ,Sta,tes could obtain instream flow rights under federal <br />'law, but sought to encourage it to rely on the Board instead. <br /> <br />CONCLUSION <br /> <br />It is axiomatic that statutes must be construed as a whole. See, <br />~, Jaeg,er v'. Colorado Ground Water Comm'n,,746 P.2d 515 (Colo. <br />1987). In light of the Board's duty under its authorizing legis- <br />lation to cooperate with the federal gbvernment to bring about <br />the greater utilization of the waters of the state and the intent <br />of the 1986 and 1987 amendments to the instream flow law to inte- <br />grate federal instream flow claims, including those for wilder- <br />ness areas, into the state system, an agreement between the BoaFd <br />