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
appropriation is lawfully made...." § 37- 92- 103(4)(emphasis added). Further, it is "the <br />policy of the state of Colorado ... to maximize the beneficial use of all of the waters of <br />this state," and to prohibit waste. Consolidated Home Supply Ditch and Reservoir Co. v. <br />Town of Berthoud 896 P.2d 260, 271 (Colo. 1995), citing State Eng'r v. Castle <br />Meadows, Inc. 856 P.2d 496, 505 (Colo. 1993); Fellhauer v. People 167 Colo. 320, 447 <br />P.2d 986 (1968). The requirement of maximum utilization of water of this state is <br />implicit in the Colorado Constitution. Fellhauer, at 994; Application for Water Rights of <br />Hines Highlands Ltd. Partnership 929 P.2d 718, 729 (Colo. 1996); City of Thornton v. <br />Bijou Irr. Co., 926 P.2d 1, 91 (Colo. 1996); Colo. Const. art. XVI, §§ 5 & 6; § 37 -92- <br />102(1)(a), C.R.S. (1990). <br />The policy of maximum beneficial use is derived from an understanding that the <br />waters of Colorado are a scarce and valuable resource, not to be wasted. Consolidated <br />Home Supply 896 P.2d at 271; Castle Meadows, Inc. 856 P.2d at 505. A water court <br />should not allow "usage that is unrealistically high, and undermines the policy of <br />maximum beneficial use of water." Matter of Bd. of County Comm'rs of County of <br />Arapahoe, 891 P.2d 952, 962 (Colo. 1995). Thus, a water user "is not entitled to <br />command the whole or a substantial flow of the stream merely to facilitate his taking the <br />fraction of the whole flow to which he is entitled." Colorado Springs v. Bender 148 <br />Colo. 458, 366 P.2d 552, 555 (1961); citing Schodde v. Twin Falls Land & Water Co. <br />224 U.S. 107, 119, 32 S.Ct. 470, 56 L.Ed. 686 (1912). "No person may appropriate more <br />water than is necessary for beneficial use." Santa Fe Trail Ranches Property Owners <br />Assign v. Simpson, 990 P.2d 46, 54 (Colo. 1999), citing Thomas v. Guiraud 6 Colo. 530, <br />532 (1883). <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.