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
Similarly, the Town of Breckenridge applied for a conditional recreational water <br />rights decree for a whitewater course in case no. OOCW281. When completed, the <br />Breckenridge course will have approximately 15 man -made structures. It will extend <br />approximately 1800 feet in length and occupy the entire Blue River channel. The chart <br />below sets forth the amounts requested by this application. <br />The State filed statements of opposition to both applications on Feb. 27, 2001. <br />The applicants, Eagle River Water and Sanitation District and the Town of Breckenridge <br />will be collectively referred to as the "Applicants." Each whitewater course will be <br />individually referred to as "Vail" and "Breckenridge." <br />Vail Course <br />Breckenridge Course <br />Apr <br />May <br />Jun <br />Jul <br />Aug <br />Sep <br />Oct <br />Conditional c.f.s. <br />1226 <br />400 <br />400 <br />400 <br />218 <br />67 <br />48 <br />Breckenridge Course <br />II. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES <br />A. The application requests approval of an impermissible instream flow <br />B. The Fort Collins decision does not allow for this type of instream flow <br />C. The applicant's appropriation does not fit within the definition of beneficial <br />use <br />III. THE APPLICATION REQUESTS APPROVAL OF AN IMPERMISSIBLE <br />INSTREAM FLOW <br />1. History of the Diversion Requirement of Appropriation <br />Apr <br />May <br />Jun <br />Jul <br />Aug <br />Sep <br />Oct <br />Conditional c.f.s. <br />139 <br />1281 <br />1524 <br />343 <br />205 <br />82 <br />51 <br />II. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES <br />A. The application requests approval of an impermissible instream flow <br />B. The Fort Collins decision does not allow for this type of instream flow <br />C. The applicant's appropriation does not fit within the definition of beneficial <br />use <br />III. THE APPLICATION REQUESTS APPROVAL OF AN IMPERMISSIBLE <br />INSTREAM FLOW <br />1. History of the Diversion Requirement of Appropriation <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.