ISFAPP00048 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

: -',. ",.. . "~.', i ~::.., ',' IX. The Court concludes that the test set forth in Fry Roofing, supra, is applicable in this case to determine whether the objectors have sustained their burden. The legislature described what was"to be accomplished--the protection of the natural environment to a reasonable degree; described who was to do it -- the Water Conservation Board after consultation with Wildlife and Parks; and set out the scope of that authority that no water shall be acquired by eminent domain, that no ap- propriation shall be made except in a manner that will not de- prive tlle people of the state of waters available by lav and interstate compact. In revie\'/ing the standards set out '~n Fry, the Court concludes that the authority to a?propriate minimum strean flows ''las properly delegated and adequate standards were supplied by the legislature. X? The Court concludes t;lat the last Sentence of C.R.S. 1973, 37~92-102{)) concerning wat~r aV03ilable by law and. interstate cOlni:Ja.:t is not a bar to the appropriations here!:-. requerited. T},e1'e was no evidence that these appropriations resul ted in an}. people of the S:ate of Colorado bei.ng depriv~d 0: the beneficial use of water. Until such til:1e as a person is in fact deprived of the beneficial use of available water because of t~~~e ~ppropriations the al!e~eu harm is purc11 speculative and m~st be r0jected. XI. The le.gisI3t~r'~, sinc~ the C3.se of Stock):..;:.:) '~'. Leddy, 55 Colo. 24 Cl91:), nAS had the recogni.zee; ri-ht to ?rote,.t th.:,;. p'..lJlicl s interests i'; the .Gtrearns of the ~t.1tc. ~hat ri(1h~ exists L~r:ay aad it is prop0rly ~xcrci ~r-'1 in Senate Bill 97. The C'..bje-::-tors cho~e to reJ y on the St<pre-'e Court's recent ruling in In the Matter of the Application for Water Rights of Wadsworth, Colo. ____, 562, P. 2d 1114, (1977), that the State Engic.eer is authorized to protect the stolte' 5 waters for :':he public; while the CO'..lrt agrees with t.he