Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />2. <br /> <br />Can the holder of a RISF right place a call on junior diverters if, liS a result of that <br />call, the minimum diversion rate specified in the RISF decree would not be made <br />available at the upstream terminus of, or at other points within, tbe stream reach <br />defined as the benefitting reach of the RISF? . . <br /> <br />RESPONSE: <br /> <br />The question assumes that some minimum amount should be imposed in the decree. This <br />is an incorrect premise and therefore t\le question is improper. To the extent that the <br />question asks whether RD's would be subject to the futile call doctrine, the answer is that <br />like other water rights in Colorado, RD' s should be subject to that doctrine. The principle <br />is easy to understand: RD's should be treated the same as other water rights. There is <br />not, however, any need to write the doctrine into the decree. It is not done for other <br />rights, and should not be done for RD's. EW memo argues that ifno minimum is <br />decreed, "ambiguities may arise when water administrators are attempting to determine <br />the validity of imposing a call to satisfY the needs of the water right." EW at 3. Such <br />ambiguities are no more present in RD's than any other right, and there is no legitimate <br />reason for treating RD' s differently than other rights. <br /> <br />3 <br />