WSP08323 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

consumptive uses. Thus water needed for power generation and the maintenance of instream flows may not be included.67 Third, the requirement that present and prospective uses are not to be impaired or increased in cost has generally been thought to mean that a compensatory reservoir must be constructed on the West Slope.68 3. Judicial Interpretation. Reference has already been made to the case of Metropolitan Suburban Water Users Association v. Colorado River Water Conservation District69 in which the Colorado Supreme Court concluded unequivocably that water may be diverted and applied to a beneficial use anywhere in the state.70 The entities proposing diversions from the West Slope in that 67See Beise, supra note 56, at 458: "The popular concept and application of these words would be to exclude power genera- tion and maintenance of public streams for fishing and scenic attractions, but to include irrigation, domestic, and manufactur- ing uses of the water." 68AS Beise notes, exportation of water necessarily reduces available supplies. "Therefore, a practical interpretation of the Act is that a project proposing to divert water from the Colorado River Basin must construct a compensatory reservoir which will leave the West Slope in as good condition for present and future development purposes as if the transporting project had not been constructed and the river involved had remained unregulated." Id. at 459. Beise goes on to point out the substantial uncertainty involvec' in determining whether a diversion project will increase the costs of future water uses on the West Slope. 69supra note 54. 70It. is not clear from the opinion what the legal basis was for the argument that the City of Denver cannot engage in transmountain diversions. Apparently, it was not based on an argument that Denver should be covered by the Colorado statute governing conservancy districts. 29