Laserfiche WebLink
Based on all of this and the rest of the evidence presented at trial, the trial court <br />concluded in its ruling from the bench that: <br />I think the evidence is clear that a minimum stream flow from the Overland Trail <br />to Interstate 25 is very much desired.... By law, the City of Fort Collins cannot <br />appropriate a minimum stream flow. <br />Supp.Vol., p.8,1.22-23; p.9,1.1-2. <br />It is clear that Fort Collins' consistent purpose in pursuing the 1986 Application and <br />the 1988 Application has been the acquisition of in- stream flows in the Poudre through Fort <br />Collins. Mr. Shannon testified that the purpose of the 1988 Application was to keep water in the <br />Recreation Corridor. Rec.Vo1.III, p.65,1.19-22; p.66,1.1- 4,1.14 -17; p.68,1.11 -16. The "diversions" <br />at the Power Plant Diversion Dam and the Nature Center Diversion Dam were claimed as points <br />of "diversion" in the 1988 Amendment purely to neutralize the opposition of the CWCB, while <br />giving Fort Collins its much desired in- stream flow by another name. The claimed beneficial uses <br />are not the result of, or dependent upon, the two claimed "diversions." This is highlighted by the <br />fact that the uses claimed in the 1986 Application are identical to the uses claimed in the 1988 <br />Application, by the fact that the 1986 Application stated that "no points of diversion" were <br />"proposed," and the testimony of Fort Collins' witnesses that, as of February 18, 1986, the City had <br />not yet decided to construct the dams. Rec.Vol.HI, p.126, 1.10 --25; p.127, 1.1 -23; p.228, 1.24 -25; <br />p.229, 1.1 -2. Fort Collins is on record, by virtue of its 1986 Application, as asserting that the <br />24 Mr. Shannon: "I can speak generally about what the City was trying to do -- that this filing [the 1986 Application] <br />and amendment [the 1988 Application] were an attempt to keep water in the river to meet the stated goals of the City <br />Council.... Q: So, you say the 1988 application, as well, is intended to keep water in this stretch [the Recreation <br />Corridor] of the river? A. This is my understanding; trying to make sure there's water in the channel... Q: But you <br />believe the purpose of the '88 application is to insure that there are these flows in this river reach; is that right? A. Yes. <br />... Q: Do you know if the City is seeking two separate water rights in this adjudication? A. I don't believe they are. <br />Q: So your understanding is there's one water right for this reach [of the Recreation Corridor] of water? A. That would <br />be my understanding." <br />M <br />