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
beneficially used and that the project can and will be completed with diligence and <br />within a reasonable time. [Emphasis added] <br />Thus, "conditional decrees will not be granted to those who cannot show more than a speculative or <br />conjectural future beneficial use." Lionelle v. Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District <br />676 P.2d 1162, 1169 (Colo. 1984); Colorado River Water Conservancy District v Vidler Tunnel <br />Water Company 197 Colo. 413, 594 P.2d 566, 568 (1979). <br />The appropriation confirmed for the Nature Center Diversion Dam does not comply <br />with the requirements of C.R.S. § 37- 92- 305(9)(b) since Fort Collins has no right to the water in the <br />reach of the river where the claimed beneficial uses are supposed to take place. Without the right <br />to require that water will remain within the reach of the river where the claimed beneficial uses will <br />take place, Fort Collins cannot demonstrate that the water it seeks to appropriate can and will be <br />beneficially used. The court, therefore, erred in confirming a water right for the Nature Center <br />Diversion Dam for recreational, piscatorial, fishery and wildlife purposes. <br />II. THORNTON'S RESPONSE TO FORT COLLINT BRIEF ON CROSS - APPEAL. <br />A. The Water Court Correctly Concluded That The Power Plant Diversion Dam Fails <br />To Control Water Sufficiently To Constitute An Appropriation Of Water Under <br />C.R.S. H 37-92-103(7) and -305(9)(b), <br />The water court determined at trial that the Power Plant Diversion Dam failed to <br />capture, possess and control 55 c.f.s. for the claimed beneficial uses and denied Fort Collins a water <br />right at the Power Plant Diversion Dam. The water court's denial of a water right at the Power Plant <br />Diversion Dam, was supported by the evidence presented, and should not be overturned on appeal. <br />Peterson, supra, 579 P.2d at 634 -35. <br />The Power Plant Diversion Dam is a concrete dam across the Poudre River which <br />includes a boat chute and a fish ladder. See Ex. A -41 (photograph of Power Plant Diversion Dam), <br />14 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.