Laserfiche WebLink
i <br />COMBINED ANSWER BRIEF AND OPENING BRIEF <br />TABLE OF CONTENTS <br />I. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ..... ............................... 1 <br />II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE ..... ............................... 1 <br />A. PROCEDURAL HISTORY . ............................... 1 <br />B. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ............. . . . . ........... 3 <br />III. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT 5 <br />IV. ARGUMENT ............. ............................... 6 <br />A. THE WATER COURT CORRECTLY DETERMINED THAT THE <br />APPROPRIATION DATE FOR FORT COLLINS' CONDITIONAL WATER <br />RIGHTS WAS FEBRUARY 18, 1986 ......................... 6 <br />1. The first step analysis used by the water court in this case was <br />wholly within the zuiftz principles of Colorado law ...... 7 <br />2. Under the facts and circumstances of this case the water court <br />found that the activities of Fort Collins demonstrated both <br />intent and sufficient overt acts to constitute an appropriation <br />as of February 18 1986, and the record supports these <br />....... ............................... 9 <br />B. THE WATER COURT'S DETERMINATION THAT FORT COLLINS' <br />AMENDMENTS TO THE APPLICATION RELATED BACK TO THE <br />FILING DATE OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION WAS CORRECT. ... 17 <br />C. FORT COLLINS' CONDITIONAL WATER RIGHTS ARE VALID <br />APPROPRIATIONS UNDER COLORADO WATER LAW............ 19 <br />1. The Water Ri -vht Determination and Administration Act of <br />1969, as amended authorizes appropriations where water is <br />controlled in its natural course by means of a structure ..... 19 <br />FTCOLVLEADINGWIEF.APP 1 <br />