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
f <br />; <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 />regional perspectives firmly in mind: (1) the River District wished to ensure that, if granted, the <br />application would not materially impair the ability of Colorado to develop its Colorado River <br />Compact entitlement; and (2) the River District wished to protect and support the ability of its <br />constituent, the Upper Gunnison District, to develop water resources necessary to benefit the local <br />economy. <br />The Upper Gunnison District fully addressed any potential that the claimed RICD would <br />impair Colorado's compact entitlement by agreeing to the terms of the September 4, 2003, <br />stipulation between the River District and the Upper Gunnison District. (R., v. II at 424-27.) That <br />stipulation requires the Upper Gunnison District to substantially reduce the potential circumstances <br />during which the RICD might otherwise be entitled to place a call on upstream junior water rights. <br />(R., v. II at 425.) This "call-limitation" means that the RICD will be entitled to place an <br />administrative call on junior water rights far less often than it otherwise would be entitled. (R., v. <br />IX, UG Ex. 13, admitted at v. V, p. 24, lines 6-9.) Importantly, the call-limitation stipulation has the <br />most benefit during the driest periods. Id. Furthermore, the call limitation provision applies to both <br />in-basin and transmountain water rights. (R., v. II at 424-27.) If the Upper Gunnison District had <br />a nefarious intent to use the RICD water right to thwart future transmountain diversions, it would <br />have limited the applicability of the call-limitation provision to in-basin water rights only. <br />The evidence presented at trial demonstrated that the recreational use sought by the Upper <br />Gunnison District will provide a substantial benefit to the City of Gunnison and the regional <br />economy of Gunnison County, which is consistent with the River District's statutorily defined role <br />Page 2
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.