Laserfiche WebLink
<br />( <br /> <br />flows rather than a competing reservoir or <br /> <br /> <br />collection system. If NWF has no standing to <br /> <br /> <br />protect instream flows because that job has <br /> <br /> <br />been delegated exclusively to the Colo~ado <br /> <br /> <br />Water Conservation Board (ewCB), then the new <br /> <br /> <br />standards against speculation would.offer <br /> <br /> <br />little comfort to NWF. Moreover as the Denver <br /> <br /> <br />. Water Board, the River District, and many <br /> <br /> <br />others have learned, it requires a tremendous <br /> <br /> <br />commitment of resources to monitor, let alone <br /> <br /> <br />prevail, in continual conditional water right <br /> <br /> <br />proceedings. <br /> <br /> <br />E. More importantly, the .Colorado Water Courts are <br /> <br /> <br />not about to take on the job of water <br /> <br /> <br />development planning. <br />1. While the Colorado supreme Court talked <br />about the most beneficial and efficient use <br />of water and about the needs of' competing <br />water users, the Court upheld the <br />cancellation 6f the conditional water right <br />in COlorado River Water Conservation <br />District v. Denver not because it was shown <br />to be less efficient or economical than <br />competing projects, but because nothing <br />specific had been done to further the <br />original project. General litigation ~nd <br /> <br />7 <br />