Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001395 <br /> <br />appropriate water. The first reason for this exclusion is that <br /> <br />most of the surface waterS in the state are already covered by <br /> <br />final or conditional appropriations, and such a change would be <br /> <br />largely irrelevant. The second reason is simply the longstanding <br /> <br />tradition and faith in the constitutional right to appropriate <br /> <br />water, However, while the study does not consider abrogation <br /> <br />or elimination of the right to appropriate, numerous other <br /> <br />changes are examined, some of which would limit or condition <br /> <br />appropriative rights. <br />b. Similarly, the water study does not consider shifting to an <br /> <br />administrative permit system for either initial appropriations <br /> <br />or for changes of water rights. The reason for this was the <br /> <br />traditional preference which Colorado has had for a judicially <br /> <br />based system. However, various changes which would give greater <br /> <br />authority to state or local government, or which would give <br /> <br />greater latitude to the water court are considered, as are the <br /> <br />establishment of new criteria which water courts could use in <br /> <br />reaching their decisions, <br /> <br />c. The water study does not consider "forced" reallocations of water <br /> <br />by government edict, condemnation, or order, and no wholesale <br /> <br />reallocations of existing water rights are considered. The study <br /> <br />does look at ways to encourage or discourage certain types of <br /> <br />reallocations or transfers, Because of current water use patterns, <br /> <br />and the realities of market economics, it is assumed that most, <br /> <br />if not all, future water transfers out of existing uses will <br /> <br />23 <br />