My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Reply Brief and Response Brief of Appleant, City of Thornton
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
3001-4000
>
Reply Brief and Response Brief of Appleant, City of Thornton
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/14/2010 1:11:58 PM
Creation date
6/11/2010 3:29:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Fort Collins and Thornton 86CW371
State
CO
Basin
South Platte
Water Division
1
Date
7/27/1991
Author
Michael D. White, Bruce D. Bernard, Teri L. Petitt
Title
Reply Brief and Response Brief of Appleant, City of Thornton
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.
/
23
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
interrogatory by stating under oath that Fort Collins formed the intent to appropriate a water right <br />at the Nature Center Diversion Dam in April of 1988. See footnote 3, supra. <br />Contrary to Fort Collins' assertion, this Court has not "expressly authorized the validity <br />of this method of initiating water rights." Fort Collins Brief, p. 13. This Court has never ruled that <br />a water right can be initiated by a subjective interpretation of a document containing absolutely no <br />reference to water rights, followed by a general delegation of the authority to appropriate water <br />rights. The case cited by Fort Collins to support its assertion, City and County of Denver v Colorado <br />River Water Conservation District 696 P.2d 730 (Colo. 1985), involved facts significantly different <br />from the case at bar. In Denver the Colorado Supreme Court held that a resolution passed by <br />Denver's Board of Water Commissioners in 1956, which expressly delegated the authority to Denver's <br />staff to appropriate "all possible raw water out of the Colorado River, and its tributaries," was wholly <br />insufficient to evidence the formation of a fixed intent by the applicant to appropriate water from <br />Straight Creek, a tributary of the Colorado River. Id. at 747. The Supreme Court found this <br />language "simply too broad and lacking in specificity to support" the appropriation sought. Id. <br />The Supreme Court did find, however, that Denver had formed the requisite intent <br />to appropriate water from Straight Creek a year later, in 1957, when Denver filed a detailed map and <br />statement with the state engineer showing the alignment of the proposed Straight Creek Conduit, the <br />location of the point of diversion obtained from a detailed field survey, and the rate at which water <br />would be diverted from Straight Creek. Id. at 748. The Supreme Court held that it was not <br />necessary for Denver's Board to subsequently meet to decide to definitely proceed with the Straight <br />Creek project as "The board had properly delegated authority to make this specific determination to <br />the staff of the Denver Water Department as an administrative function" in the 1956 resolution. Id. <br />7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.