There's the heart of the debate: consumptive vs. non consumptive use. Interstate compacts only address consumptive use. In fact a non-consumptive use water right has very little value since (to be bloody honest) you can't change it to an irrigation right to water some damn golf course.
Your points are good ones.
I hope through this discussion others can become more educated about Colorado water law and RICD rights.
The bill doesn't limit RICD rights so much because they are non-consumptive, but limits them because they could limit Colorado's abity to CONSUME all the water we are entitled to under the compact.
The consumptive clause in the act will probably only impact RICD applications near the State line, or where there is little downstream development before the State line and where the river is not heavily over appropriated (Fruita, Steamboat, Durango?) Folks up in the mountains like Vail, Gunnison, etc. will probably not be severly impacted by the clause.
Here's a way to look at it: say the government took all your savings at the end of the year even if you played with the money like Scrooge McDuck, but never spent it. That would encourage you to spend every dime that is rightfully yours by years end. The State's position on interstate compact water is much the same. The "end of the year" is the State line; better consume (spend) the water before then.
So far as mining rights, while they did form the origional framework of prior appropriation, heavily consumptive irrigation rights have been the most imporatant and heavily litigated water rights in the State.
Linear Mode
