My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Case No. 90SA514 Opening Brief for the Appellant
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
3001-4000
>
Case No. 90SA514 Opening Brief for the Appellant
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/24/2010 12:21:26 PM
Creation date
6/11/2010 2:58:18 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Fort Collins and Thorton 86CW371
State
CO
Basin
South Platte
Water Division
1
Date
5/6/1991
Author
Michael D. White, Bruce D. Bernard, Teri L. Petitt
Title
Case No. 90SA514 Opening Brief for the Appellant
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.
/
36
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
"conditional water right" and is defined by statute as the "right to perfect a water right with a <br />certain priority upon the completion with reasonable diligence of the appropriation upon which <br />such water right is to be based." C.R.S. § 37 -92- 103(6). A decree for a conditional water right <br />establishes that the requisite "first step" toward the appropriation of a certain amount of water has <br />been taken and recognizes the relation back of the appropriation to the date of that first step. <br />C.R.S. § 37 -92- 305(1); Colorado River Water Conservancy District v. Vidler Tunnel Water <br />Company, 197 Colo. 413, 594 P.2d 566, 567 (1979) (" Vidler "); City of Aspen v. Colorado River <br />Water Conservancy District, 696 P.2d 758, 761 (Colo. 1985) (" <br />The "first step" required in order to initiate an appropriation must consist of the <br />concurrence on that date of two elements: (1) the intent on behalf of the applicant to take the <br />water and put it to beneficial use, and (2) a demonstration of that intent by an overt physical act <br />sufficient to put third parties on notice of the proposed appropriation. Twin Lakes Reservoir and <br />Canal Company v. City of Aspen, 192 Colo. 209, 557 P.2d 825, 828 (1976) ( " Twin Lakes "); Aspen <br />supra, 696 P.2d at 761; Fruitland Irrigation Co. v. Kruemling 62 Colo. 160, 162 P. 161 (1916) <br />( " Fruitland '). <br />The trial court held that Fort Collins' adoption of the Land Use Plan on February <br />18, 1986 at a public meeting, a February 1986 field trip, and, ten months later, the posting of signs <br />and the publication of notices were sufficient to demonstrate the first step to appropriate a water <br />right at the Nature Center Diversion Dam as of February 18, 1986. Decree, p.3 -4; Supp.Rec., p.5, <br />1.12 -25; p.6, 1.1 -11. However, neither the Land Use Plan, nor any other act demonstrated by the <br />evidence in this case, supports the concurrence on February 18, 1986 of both: (1) an intent by <br />Fort Collins to appropriate a water right at the Nature Center Diversion Dam, and (2) an overt <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.