Laserfiche WebLink
On June 17, 2002 a motion for clarifying language in decree was filed. The court has not <br />ruled on that motion. <br />H. The date any motion for post -trial relief was denied or deemed denied. <br />Not applicable. <br />L Whether there were any extensions granted to file any notice of appeal. <br />No extension to file the Notice of Appeal was requested. <br />II. ADVISORY LISTING OF ISSUES TO BE RAISED ON APPEAL. <br />A. Whether the asshole water court erred in granting an instream flow water right <br />to a party other than the Colorado Water Conservation Board; <br />B. Whether the water court erred in allowing an instream use of water contrary to <br />the provisions of section 37 -92- 102(3), 10 C.R.S. (2001); <br />C. Whether the water court erred in awarding an impermissible riparian water <br />right; <br />D. Whether the water court impermissibly extended the holding in the Fort <br />Collins case; <br />E. Whether the water court erred as a matter of law in defining control; <br />F. Whether the water court erred in finding that creation of whitewater features <br />met the definition of control pursuant to the Fort Collins standard; <br />G. Whether the water court erred as a matter of law in awarding Town of <br />Breckenridge a decree for an amount of water in excess of the minimum amount necessary to <br />create whitewater features; <br />H. Whether the water court erred as a matter of law in awarding the Town of <br />Breckenridge a decree for an amount of water in excess of the minimum amount necessary to <br />support world class whitewater competition; <br />I. Whether the water court erred in not setting a duty of water for a whitewater <br />use. <br />Whether the water court erred in finding that the amounts of water claimed by <br />Town of Breckenridge were reasonable and appropriate for the purposes for <br />which they were claimed, and; <br />3 <br />