Laserfiche WebLink
(collectively, the " Whitewater Cases").' In these Whitewater Cases, the applicants have <br />obtained decreed water rights for recreational instream uses, relying on the case of City of <br />Thornton v. City of Fort Collins 830 P.2d 915 (Colo. 1992). The State opposed the applications <br />because they were contrary to the express intent of the Legislature and significantly extended the <br />case of Fort Collins beyond its facts and rulings. <br />This appeal involves a water matter tried before the water court for Water Division 5. In <br />this case, the Town of Breckenridge ( "the Applicant ") applied for a conditional water right <br />decree for recreational instream uses. The Breckenridge whitewater course ( "the Course ") <br />includes 15 "structures" of new and pre- existing boulders that do not divert or impound water, <br />but rather allow it to overtop the structure. (v. XV, p. 1170; v. VIII, pp. 147 -149). <br />In its application, Breckenridge is claiming water in amounts that are rarely available and <br />represent the entire hydrograph for the Blue River for the months of April through October. (v. <br />VIII, p. 134). The maximum amounts claimed have been available four times in forty -three <br />years. (v. VIII, pp. 135, 137). The Applicant requested the following water rights: <br />Amounts Claimed in Application <br />In an effort to streamline this Brief, the State has not again briefed at length all the issues raised <br />in the Golden brief, but by limiting this Brief's length does not waive those issues. The issues <br />raised in the Opening Brief in the Vail case are also substantially the same, but with more issues <br />discussed at length than in this brief. <br />2 <br />Apr <br />May <br />Jun <br />Jul <br />Aug <br />Sep <br />Oct <br />Conditional <br />c.f.s. <br />39 <br />281 <br />500 <br />343 <br />205 <br />82 <br />51 <br />In an effort to streamline this Brief, the State has not again briefed at length all the issues raised <br />in the Golden brief, but by limiting this Brief's length does not waive those issues. The issues <br />raised in the Opening Brief in the Vail case are also substantially the same, but with more issues <br />discussed at length than in this brief. <br />2 <br />