ISFAPP00648 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

" ., -, . ~. ..1; "" ;, ,',' 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 P~rks; 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 thCl people of the state (,f watClrs available by la\-l and interstate compact. In revie\'ling the standards set out '~n Fry, the Court concluuen that the authority to appropriate minimum stream flows was properly delegated and adequate standards were supplied by the legislature. ;c: The Court concludes t:lat the last sentence of C. R. S. 1~73, 37-92-102(3) concerning wat~r av~ilabla by law anu intc.t'state cOlnj,Ja.:t jg not " bar to the appropriatic'l1s hereir. requented. T!wre was nO evidence that these appropriations resulted in any peOi)le of the State of Coloraclo bei.ng depriv.ad 0= the beneficial use of water. Until such time as a person is in fact deprived of the beneficial use of available water because of t~~~e appropriations the alle~ed harm is purcl~ speculative and must be rf~jected. XI. The legislat~r'!, sinc~ the c~se of Sto~~~~~ ~. Leddy, 55 Colo. 2~ nryl?), OilS had the reco<;nizec: ri-ht to prote,ot th.:.: p'-~Jlicf.s interests i '; the Gtrearns of the ;t~tc. That rioh~: exists l.':'Ir:.1Y aiJd it is pro~('rly 1;'~~ rci~l"~ in Senate Bill n, The cbje.,tors chose to reJ'{ on the> S,-,pr,,"e Court's recent ruling in In the Mnttcr of. the Application for Water Rights of Wadsworth, Colo~ ____, 562, P. 2d 1114, (1977), that the State Engineer is authorized to protect 'the