Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />appropriation of unappropriated water: (1) what is a reasonable <br /> <br />water supply planning period; (2) what are the substantiated <br /> <br />population projections based on a normal rate of growth for that <br /> <br />period; and (3) what amount of available unappropriated water is <br /> <br />reasonably necessary to serve that population for the planning <br /> <br />period, above its current water supply. <br /> <br />In addition, the <br /> <br />governmental agency must show under the "can and will" test that <br /> <br />it can and will put the conditionally appropriated water to <br /> <br />beneficial use within a reasonable period of time. <br /> <br />The Supreme Court determines that the water court has not <br /> <br />made sufficient findings of fact enabling its review of the <br /> <br />water court's judgment and decree. Areas of unresolved factual <br /> <br />findings include: what is a reasonable water supply planning <br /> <br />period for the districts; what are the substantiated population <br /> <br />projections for future growth in the districts; what are the <br /> <br />future land use mixes and per capita water usage requirements <br /> <br />taking into account implementation of water conservation <br /> <br />measures; considering water reuse, what is the measure of <br /> <br />consumptive use the districts reasonably need to serve their <br /> <br />population in the future during the reasonable planning period; <br /> <br />and have the districts met the "can and will" test for a <br /> <br />conditional appropriation of water. <br /> <br />The Supreme Court reverses the water court judgment, and <br /> <br />remands the case to the water court for further proceedings. <br /> <br />2 <br />