My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Trial Brief (2)
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
5001-6000
>
Trial Brief (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/15/2010 1:24:29 PM
Creation date
7/7/2010 2:44:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Case No. 00CW259 Vail RICD and Case No. 00CW281 Breckenridge RICD
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
4/1/2002
Author
Ken Salazar, Susan Schneider, John Cyran, Shana Smilovits
Title
Trial Brief
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.
/
14
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
water is concentrated through a notch in the dam for boating (and a fish ladder). (Exhibit <br />E). <br />Unlike the Fort Collins structure that had a chute or cut into a portion of it for <br />passage and safe navigability, the main purpose of the courses at issue is to create <br />whitewater features for recreation. A primary difference between a boat chute and a <br />whitewater course is that a boat chute allows safe passage past an obstruction, while <br />whitewater courses create whitewater features. Although course structures may influence <br />the hydraulics or direction of the flow of water, they do not "control" the water. At <br />higher flows the rivers at issue run uncontrolled in their natural course and clearly do not <br />control the water under the holding of Fort Collins Id. <br />Under the applicant's theory, any structure that changes the pattern of the water in <br />any way, including a boulder in the stream, would constitute "control." Placing devices <br />in a stream to create waves is simply not "control" within the meaning of section 37 -92- <br />103(7) or Fort Collins Further, while the Court did not address the issue of capture, <br />possession and control or impoundment in Fort Collins the Fort Collins boat chute was <br />incorporated into a dam that clearly captured, possessed, controlled and impounded the <br />water immediately prior to its flowing through a notch in the dam. <br />V. THE APPLICANT'S APPROPRIATION DOES NOT FIT WITHIN THE <br />STATUTORY DEFINITION OF BENEFICIAL USE <br />1. Section 37 -92- 103(4) requires "impoundment" for recreational uses <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.