Laserfiche WebLink
COLOR.ADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD <br />1313 Sherman Street, Suite 721 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />IN THE MATTER OF THE CITY OF STEAMBOAT <br />SPRINGS FOR A RECREATIONAL IN-CHANNEL <br />DIVERSION A COURT USE ONLY A <br />IN ROUTT COUNTY, COLORADO <br />Porzak Browning & Bushong LLP Case Number: 6-03CW86 <br />Glenn E. Porzak (#2793) <br />929 Pearl Street, Suite 300 Water Division: 6 <br />Boulder, CO 80302 <br />Tel: 303-443-6800 <br />Fax: 303-443-6864 <br />Email: gl2orzak&bblaw.com <br />Lettunich & Vanderbloemen, LLC <br />Anthony B. Leriunich (#6896) <br />200 Lincoln Avenue, Suite 300 <br />P.O. Box 773990 <br />Steamboat Springs, CO 80477 <br />PREHEARING REBUTTAL STATEMENT <br />OF THE CITY OF STEAMBOAT SPRINGS <br />The City of Steamboat Springs ("the City") submits its Rebuttal Statement to the <br />Prehearing statements filed on behalf of the Colorado Water Conservation Board ("CWCB") by <br />its staff ("CWCB Staff') and the other parties opposing the water right claims for the structures <br />CviT'ipiiSiiig the Steambvat SyT"iIIgS RCating D2.Tk ("B^v2aiiug D3Tk' j. <br />Existing Case Law <br />The City's claim in this matter is the latest in the line of recreational boating cases that <br />began with Gity of Thornton v. City of Fort Collins, 830 P.2d 915 (Colo. 1992). These decisions <br />all held that the key inquiry with respect to whether the amount of water claimed for the boating <br />structures is reasonable, and whether the applicant has made a staiutory "diversion" with its in- <br />channel structures must be made by reference to the applicant's stated intent and purposes. <br />Notwithstanding, the statements filed by the CWCB Staff and the other opposers fail to address, <br />or even cite to any of this case precedent. In fact, they completely ignore the City's stated <br />purposes for developing and seeking water rights for the Boating Park. As set forth below, that <br />established case law, and the City's purposes in developing the Boating Park control the outcome <br />of this controversy, even in light of Senate Bi1101-216 ("SB-216"). <br />Ph0751,2