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 />.` <br />Supreme Court, State of Colorado (Appeal from District Court, Water Division No. 4, Case No. 02GW38) <br />Case No. 04SA44: Colorado Water Conservation Board v. Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District <br />Answer Brief ofthe Colorado River Water Conservation District <br />V. CONCLUSION <br />Whether SB 216 created an entirely new type of water right or simply recognized existing <br />law and imposed certain limits on future RICDs may present an interesting intellectual debate. In <br />this case, however, it is mostly irrelevant because: (1) the legislature assumed that such rights did <br />exist when it adopted SB 216, so any ambiguity in SB 216 must be interpreted with that assumption <br />in mind; (2) the RICD water right at issue meets the long-standing statutory definition of diversion; <br />(3) the water court gave appropriate weight to the Findings of Fact and Recommendations of the <br />CWCB; (4) the water court properly applied SB 216, including a detailed review of the compact <br />impairment and maximum utilization "balancing factors"; and (5) the evidence presented by the <br />Upper Gunnison District was more than sufficient to overcome anypresumption of validity thatmay <br />be applicable to the CWCB's Findings of Fact. <br />WHEREFORE, the River District respectfully requests that the Court affirm the Findings of <br />Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order, and the Decree of the Division 4 Water Court. <br />[Signature block on following page] <br />Page 20
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.