Laserfiche WebLink
<br />). ,~J,. <br /> <br />001125 <br /> <br />Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are <br />available to the public and can be accessed <br />through the Court's homepage at <br />http://www.courts.state.co.us/supct/supct.htm <br />Opinions are also posted on the Colorado Bar <br />Association homepage at www.cobar.org. <br /> <br />ADVANCE SHEET HEADNOTE <br />November 20, 2000 <br /> <br />No. 98SA327, Board of County Commissioners v. Crystal Creek <br />Homewoners' Association: Aspinall Unit - Beneficial Use - "Can <br />and Will" Doctrine - Colorado River Compact - Colorado River <br />Storage Project Act - Fish and Wildlife - Flood Control -' <br />Hydropower - Marketable Pool - Subordination - <br /> <br />The Board of County Commissioners of the County of Arapahoe <br /> <br />appealed the judgment of the District Court, Water Division <br /> <br />No. 4 (the water court) denying and dismissing with prejudice <br /> <br />Arapahoe County's applications for decrees for conditional water <br /> <br />rights for the Union Park Reservoir Project (the Project)--a <br /> <br />large water storage project west of the Continental Divide in <br /> <br />the Upper Gunnison River Basin. The water court concluded that <br /> <br />there was insufficient water available in the Basin for <br /> <br />Arapahoe's proposed diversions. Arapahoe County (Arapahoe) <br /> <br />argued that the Gunnison River Basin above the Aspinall Unit <br /> <br />contains ample water resources for the transbasin diversion of <br /> <br />water across the Continental Divide for ultimate use on <br /> <br />Colorado's Front Range. <br /> <br />The supreme court affirms the water court, holding that it <br /> <br />properly applied the ~can and will" doctrine in determining the <br />