My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Answer Brief of the Colorado River Water Conservancy District
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
2001-3000
>
Answer Brief of the Colorado River Water Conservancy District
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:41:39 PM
Creation date
7/29/2009 1:45:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8230.2F
Description
Colorado Supreme Court Appeal
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
4
Date
1/1/3000
Author
Peter C. Fleming, Kristin M. Gillespie
Title
Answer Brief of the Colorado River Water Conservancy District
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.
/
25
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
<br />Supreme Court, State of Colorado (Appeal from District Court, Water Division No. 4, Case No. 02CW38) <br />Case No. 04SA44: Colorado Water Conservation Board v. Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District <br />Answer Brief of the Colorado River Water Conservation District <br />that the claimed RICD could place an administrative call on currently unknown junior water rights <br />located upstream of the RICD in certain limited circumstances. See State's Opening Brief, p. 26. <br />The simple fact that the RICD, just like any other water, has the potential to call-out more junior <br />water rights on occasion does not result in compact impairment. <br />The great weight of testimony at trial was provided by 7ames Lochhead, a former executive <br />director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, who served at trial as the Upper <br />Gunnison District's expert witness on compact and maximum utilization issues. (R., v. V, p. 205, <br />line 25 to p. 206, line 1; v. V, p. 213, line 2, p. 118, line 13 to p. 219, line 3.) Mr. Lochhead testified <br />that there would not be any compact impairment because the state's Colorado River Compact <br />entitlement is allocated to the state as a whole, not to individual river basins. (R., v. V, p. 221, line <br />5 to p. 225, line 9; v. VI, p. 12, lines 9-16; p. 19, line 8 to p. 20, line 10.) <br />The state's compact entitlement therefore can be developed in other river basins. In addition, new <br />water development can occur upstream of the RICD, even in circumstances where the RICD might <br />be entitled to place an administrative call under the priority system on a junior water right. The <br />doctrine of maximum utilization requires that all water rights, includingpossible future projects, use <br />reasonable means to effectuate their diversions. To promote maximum utilization, future projects <br />must take advantage of the flexible nature of Colorado water law to develop projects through the use <br />of augmentation plans, new storage facilities, and exchanges. (R., v. VI, p.5, line 7 to p. 7, line 17.) <br />Page 19
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.