Applicants' Response to State's Motion for Summary Judgement on the Relevance of SB 212

• Description: Case No. 00CW259 Vail RICD and Case No. 00CW281 Breckenridge RICD
• State: CO
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Water Division: 5
• Date: 3/21/2002
• Author: Glenn E. Porzak, Steven J. Bushong, P. Fritz Hollerman
• Title: Applicants' Response to State's Motion for Summary Judgement on the Relevance of SB 212
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Court Documents

MAR -27 -2002 17:07 FROM -DOL NATURAL RESOURCES 3038663558 T -711 P- 002/009 F -015
DISTRICT COURT, WATER DIVISION NO. 5, STATE OF
COLORADO
109 - 8th Street, Suite 104
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 ,
CONCERNING THE APPLICATION FOR WATER AT
RIGHTS OF THE EAGLE RIVER WATER & `=
SANITATION DISTRICT
AND ♦ COURT USE ONLY
CONCERNING THE APPLICATION FOR WATER
RIGHTS OF THE TOWN OF BRECKENRIDGE
IN EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
Glenn E. Porzak ( #2793) Case Number: OGCW259 &
Porzak Browning & Bushong LLP OOCW281
929 Pearl Street, Suite 300
Boulder, CO 80302
Tel: [phone] Division: 5
Email: [e-mail]
APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO STATE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
ON THE RELEVANCE OF SB 212
The Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, the Applicant in Case No. OOCW259, and
the Town of Breckenridge, the Applicant in Case No. OOCW281 (collectively, "Applicants "),
through their undersigned counsel, hereby respond to the motion for summary judgment filed by
the Colorado Water Conservation Board ( "CWCB ") and the State and Division Engineers
(collectively, the "State ").
Introduction
The State argues that Senate Bill 212 ( "SB 212 ") prevents Applicants from making the
appropriations sought in this case. The argument is that the 1987 passage of SB 212 modified
the law in a manner that limits the effect of the 1992 holding in City of Thornton v. City of Fort
C ollins, 830 P.2d 915, 930 (Colo. 1992), because it provided the CWCB with exclusive authority
Ph0454