My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Applicant's Closing Reply Brief
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
2001-3000
>
Applicant's Closing Reply Brief
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:41:38 PM
Creation date
7/29/2009 12:51:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8230.2B2
Description
Discovery
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
4
Date
12/3/2003
Author
Cynthia F. Covell
Title
Applicant's Closing Reply Brief
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.
/
66
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 />D2CWD38 <br />also Town of Sterling v. Pawnee Ditch Extension Co., 94 P. 339 (Colo. 1908) (noting that where <br />questions of efficiency of a diversion arise, "the purpose for which the appropriation is made and the <br />proportion ofthe diversion actually applied to a beneficialuse, as compared with the volume diverted, <br />would doubtless be important matters to consider") <br />Although there is an element of subjectivity in the traditional concept of beneficial use, an <br />appropriator does not hav.e free reign to appropriate water for any purpose or motive whatsoever. <br />An appropriator cannot claim water for speculative purposes. Vidler Tunnel Water Co., 594 P.2d <br />566 (Colo. 1979). There must be a legitimate and "beneficial" end use of the water.14 On the other <br />hand, if an appropriator meets the burden af establishing a non-speculative intent and need for water <br />and demonstrates a plan to put the water to use and shows that water is available to meet his proven <br />requirements, then a court cannot limit the amount of water to some amou.nt below the established <br />'a The District has demonstrated a legitimate intent to appropriate water for an actual <br />project, designed and constructed by Gunnison County to meet a desired community goal - a <br />perfectly legitimate water right. The State's attribution of a"prejudicial" motive to the District <br />underscores the desperate nature of their argument. The fact that a water right may have a <br />secondary consequence which applicant finds desirable does not defeat an otherwise legitunate <br />water right. For example, the Fort Collins Nature Dam diversion had the effect of "protecting the <br />natural environment," but, despite the opposers' contentions to the contrary, and despite the fact <br />that the water right had initially been filed as an instream right, Fort Collins was not found to have <br />had "prejudicial" motive (whatever that is), and was not prevented from acquiring the water right <br />simply because its purpose inimicked an instream flow in many ways. <br />-11-
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.