My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Applicant's Closing Brief: Case No. 02CW038
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
2001-3000
>
Applicant's Closing Brief: Case No. 02CW038
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:41:33 PM
Creation date
7/28/2009 11:54:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8230.2B3
Description
Pleadings
State
CO
Basin
South Platte
Water Division
4
Date
10/22/2003
Author
Cynthia F. Covell
Title
Applicant's Closing Brief: Case No. 02CW038
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Court Documents
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
116
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District <br />02CW038 <br />As finally proposed, SB 216 did not contain any objective "minimum amount" standard. <br />Rathei, traditional notions relating to the allowable amount of water were to apply. (See preceding <br />discussion of SB 216's plain lanb age.) This is confirmed by remarks of CWCB Director Rod <br />Kuharich on May 7, 2001: <br />... But I think if you look at the definition, it's an attempt to fit this <br />water right into the process we have now. It tallcs about minunum <br />amount of water necessary to accomplish a reasonable recreational <br />experience. I tlunk [unintelligible] . Reasonable and recreational and <br />are two words that are used in there. <br />And I do thinlc that it's consistent with the test that other water users <br />have to comply with because any water user, be it agricultural, <br />municipal or industrial, is governed by the test of efficiency where it's <br />not all the water they can physically get a hold of, but it's all the <br />water that they can reasonably and efficiently use. And that really <br />becomes the test of what those water rights can appropriate. And I <br />think by this definition, we have placed this water right in the same <br />light that the other waterYight classifications are. [Emphasis added]. <br />Transcript of May 7, 2001 Hearing at p. 6. <br />III. How Senate Bi11216 Applies to This Case. <br />A. Access Reach, and Impact on the CWCB's Instream Flows Are Not In Dispute. <br />In this case, the 102(6) factors regarding appropriateness of the reach, access, and lack of <br />material injury to the CWCB's decreed instream flow rights are not in dispute, and the Court must <br />recreational uses have on our states futures abilities to development and use water resources.") <br />-17-
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.