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
The boat chute was a notch in the dam that controlled and concentrated the flow of water <br />into the boat chute. The Fort Collins dam structure impounded the water. The Court held <br />that "the chute and the ladder control and direct river water only at unspecified low flows <br />in the river," which was not a defect since that is precisely what they were designed to <br />do. Fort Collins. 830 P.2d at 932. Based upon the low -flow notch that narrowly <br />controlled the water to allow safe passage, the Court found that the Fort Collins boat <br />chute conformed to the diversion requirements of Colorado water law. See Fort Collins <br />830 P.2d at 931 -932. The court noted that if the water "continues to flow as it did prior <br />to the renovation," then the dam would not control the water and the claim would have <br />been an illegal instream flow. Exhibits S -28.1 and 28.2 explicitly show how the Fort <br />Collins boat chute changed the flow of the river. <br />2. Senate Bill 212 and CWCB's creation <br />The legislature passed Senate Bill 212 ( "SB 212 ") in response to the Fort Collins <br />application, which went into effect in 1987. It granted the CWCB the "exclusive <br />authority" to appropriate water for instream flows. SB 212; § 37 -92 -102, C.R.S. (1987). <br />SB 212 also added the following language: <br />In the adjudication of water rights pursuant to this article and other <br />applicable law, no other person or entity shall be granted a decree <br />adjudicating a right to water or interests in water for instream flows in a <br />stream channel between specific points, or for natural surface water levels <br />or volumes for natural lakes, for any purpose whatsoever. <br />4 "The water court's reasoning that the boat chute and the fish ladder at the renovated <br />Power Dam do not add any control to the river or that the river continues to flow as it <br />did prior to the renovation of the Power Dam suggests that the chute and ladder in fact <br />fail to function as designed.... If this is the case, then the waters claimed at the Power <br />Dam are not being put to beneficial use...." Fort Collins 830 P.2d at 932. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.