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
R <br />Upper Gunnison River Water Co?xservancy District <br />02CW038 <br />(July 1-15). With two exceptions, the CWCB's expert, Mr. Seaholm agreed with this depiction of <br />the amount of impact.1z The evidence is clear that such an impact does not cause compact <br />impairment. <br />C. The District's Water Rights Promote Maximum Utilization. <br />SB 216 describes the "maximum utilization" factor as "[w]hether adjudication and <br />adnunistration of the recreational in-channel diversion would promote maximum utilization of the <br />waters ofthe state as referenced in [C.R.S. § 37-92-102(1)(a)]." C.R.S. § 37-92-102(6)(b)(V). As <br />noted above, section 102(1)(a) describes Colorado's public policy "to integrate the appropriation, <br />use, and adnunistration of groundwater tributary to a stream with the use of surface water in such a <br />way as to maximize the beneficial use of all of the waters of the state." There are no issues in this <br />case involving the conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater, and no evidence that the <br />'zThe two exceptions were Mr. Seaholm's disagreement with the averaging technique used <br />by Mr. Slattery and his disagreement over modeling the Aspinall Unit direct flow hydropower <br />water rights in assessing water availability / impact. Mr. Seaholm acknowledged that the monthly <br />averaging technique used by Jim Slattery was reasonable and that, although it maslced small <br />periods of time when the whitewater course could place a call for its water rights, the increased <br />call potential identified by da.ily accounting was negligible. In his analysis, Mr. Seaholm assumed <br />that a call would not be placed for the Aspinall Unit direct flow hydropower rights. This <br />assumption is simply wrong, as the Colorado Supreme Court expressly held to the contrary in <br />Board of County Comm'rs v. Crystal CreekHomeowners'Assoc., 14 P.3d at 335, 336, 337. <br />When those water rights are included, as they should be, Mr. Seaholm agrees with Mr. Slattery's <br />impact analysis (subject to his comments on the averaging technique.) <br />-24-
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.