WSP09893

• File Number: 8200.766
• Description: Gunnison River General Publications-Correspondence-Reports
• State: CO
• Basin: Gunnison
• Water Division: 4
• Date: 4/1/1991
• Author: Various
• Title: Newspaper Articles - April 1991
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: News Article/Press Release

1991

-

~ ot. .
,Se1';,f:
ses~
u1*
<It
:t1y,
da~~
~al
lllS
.ng
oof
,at
~a~

of the conditional water right would be
plore difficult. In deciding how far to go .
in requiring proof of feasibility, the
courts might be guided by the original,
legislative purpose of ~ 305(9)(b) topr~;
vent speculation, To achieve this goal,
perhaps it is necessary only to show'
that the application is not speculative>
udder Vidler and that there is a sub:
'stantial probability that the project a's
proposed will be built. . '
On the other hand, objectors to the
Aurora and Arapahoe County applica-
tions in Water Division No.4 apparent-
ly have argued that the applicants
should be required to prove, in the
course of the adjudication proceedings.
that various governmental permits
would be granted for the proposed pro-
ject." At the least, such a procedure
could be cumbersome and time-consum-
ing. It also might ultimately be a waste
of time because any decision by the
Water Court on permitting issues would
not be binding on the actual permitting
agencies.

of
di-

'es

go
be
01-
he
05
:a~
er
Ig,
'e-
Jy
"t
~t,
to
e-
le

Conclusion

The only certainty about the require,
ments under CRS * 37,92-305(9)(b) is
that, for the next several years, the stat-
ute's requirements will be a fertile bat,
tIeground in court. The issue also may
make its way into the General Assem-
bly. The battle will continue until the
statute's full implications are determined
Dr its requirements are altered.

;h

v-
'e
Ie
)f

NOTES

'.

.e

L 688 P.2d 715 (Colo. 1984).
2. Elk.Rifle Water Co. v. Templeton, 484
P.2d 1211 (Colo. 1971).
3. Colorado River Water Conservation
Dist. v. Vidler Tunnel Water Co.. 594 P.2d
566 (Colo. 1979).

Ir
,I
o
1-

. NATURAL RESOURCE NOTES

4.Id.
5. Florence, supra, note 1 at 718 (empha-
sis in original).
6. 795 P.2d 837 (Colo. 1990).
7. The Supreme Court also held that the
Water Cowt did not have jurisdiction to de-
termine in the water right adjudication pro-
ceeding the relative ownership interests of
FWS and the Division of Wildlife in the res.
ervoir site. [d. at 841.
8. State v. Southwestern Colorado Water
Conservation Dist., 671 P.2d 1294 (Colo.
1983).
9. Hearing before the Colorado Senate
Conunittee on Agriculture, Natural Resources
and Energy, March 15, 1979; Hearing before
the Colorado House Committee on Agricul-
ture, Livestock and Natural Resources, May
7.8, 1979.
10. The Supreme Court recognized this
legislative intent in Jaeger v. Colorado
Ground Water Comm'n, 746 P.2d 515, 522
(Colo. 1987), with regard to the changes in
the definition of an appropriation made in
CRS * 37.92.103(3) when it noted that
it appears from the timing that in amend-
ing the 1969 Act, the legislature was sim~
ply attempting to codify or refine the anti-
speculation doctrine affirmed in Vidler. . . .
11. 276 P.2d 992 (Colo. 1954).
12. 1\vo years after enactment of * 305
(glib), the Supreme Court noted in Rocky
.\fountain Power Co. v. Colorado River Water
Conservation Dist., 646 P.2d 383 (Colo.
1982). that Vidler itself was simply an affir-
mation of previous case law and a recogni-
tion of the requirements of existing statutes.
l:t City and County of Denver v. Colorado
Ricer Water Conservation Dis!., 696 P.2d 730
(Colo. 19851.
14. Water Supply and Storage Co. v.
Curtis, 733 P.2d 680 I Colo. 19871.
15. Jaeger, supra, note n.
16. FWS, supra, note 6 at 840.
C!:0 Concerning the Applications for Water
Rights of the City of Aurora, Colorado, and
the County of Arapahoe, Colorado, in Gunni-
son County, Colorado, Case Nos. 86CW37,
86CW226 and 88CW178, Water Division No.
4, Colorado, Order Re- Rule .56(hJ Motion to

729

Answer Questions of Law at 19 (Sept. 14,
1990).
18. Concerning the Applications for Water
Rights of the City of Aurora, Water Division
No.4, Applicant's Motion for Determination
of Questions of Law Under Rule 56(h)
Pennit, Approvals and Land Aquisition, Jan.
9.1991.

MOVING?
l'.
'J.' ) CALL THE ONLY
, METRO MOVER
<' Ii . WITH THESE QUALITIES:
~ UI

STABILITY:
CAPACITY:

Same family ownership since 1900.

Only Johnson's can combine our
live Metro locations 10 lield 100
qualified drug-lested employees.

Johnson's claim records are sub-
stanllally less than 1;201 the IndUS-
try averages.

Only Johnson's tJas live metro
Denver locations. We're close to
youl

aUALlTY:

LOCATION:

ACCESSIBILITY:

Our customer service center is
open 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. (MST)
Mon. - Fn. and 8:00 a.m. to 12:00
noon on Saturday.
CALL
DON JOHNSON
CEO & J 0 (Uruve/Sity 01 Denver}
~

JIM JOHNSON
VICe Pre5>denl. Sales & Marketing
"

778-6683

johnson storage & moving company
AFF1UATJ;S IN
AURORA . BOUlDERlONGMONT. CHEYeI*JE
ca..OAADOSPRINGS. DENVER. ENGlEWOOO. SANrAFE

Real Estate Section Seeks Convention Topics

What topics would you like to see discussed at the Real Estate portion of the 1991 CBA Convention? If you have a sugges-
tion, call or write Bruce Kolbezen, Hecox, Tolley, Keene & Beltz, 316 N. Tejon St., P.O. Box 316. Colorado Springs, CO 80901;
[phone] or [phone].

Hazardous Waste Society Issues Call for Papers

The Colorado Hazardous Waste Society recently issued a call for papers for its annual conference in October. The conference,
which runs October 3-4, will be held at the Regency Hotel in Denver. It is co.sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Colorado Department of Health, Colorado School of Mines, University of Colorado, Colorado State University and
Front Range Community College.
Abstracts must be submitted by April 30. If selected, the final papers will be due August 26. For topics and other confer-
ence information, contact Dr. Rupert Burtan at (303) 758,1482.