My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CWCB vs. Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District - Adjudication of RICD under SB 01-216
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
4001-5000
>
CWCB vs. Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District - Adjudication of RICD under SB 01-216
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/16/2010 12:39:05 PM
Creation date
7/14/2010 3:45:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Gunnison RICD
State
CO
Basin
Gunnison
Water Division
4
Date
3/14/2005
Author
CWCB, Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District
Title
CWCB vs. Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District - Adjudication of RICD under SB 01-216
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.
/
56
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
Collins, the other is Littleton. Ft. <br />Collins got a decree for thirty cfs on the <br />Poudre River; Littleton got a decree for 100 <br />cfs on the South Platte River <br />"Those kinds of cases are not the problem. <br />It's the big filings that have recently been <br />made, first by Golden, and in December <br />several more in the range of 500 or more cfs <br />"One of the realities you've heard people <br />say is that if a 1,000 cfs water right on <br />Clear Creek is decreed or a 500 cfs water <br />right on other smaller streams is decreed, <br />that effectively ties up the entire <br />unappropriated flow of that stream. It will <br />effectively prevent the construction of <br />junior upstream storage projects.. It will <br />effectively prevent exchanges from happening <br />in the future <br />Apr. 18 Senate Hearings (statement of Mike Shimmin) (on file <br />with Colorado State Archives). -0 <br />Having articulated the problem, the General Assembly then <br />turned its attention to formulating a solution to "the ultimate <br />policy question" of "ho:,,* do you decide how much [water] is <br />enough to float boats for legitimate recreational purposes" <br />9 According to the transcript of the April 18 Senate Hearings, <br />Mike Shimmin then was an attorney practicing water law in <br />Boulder, Colorado. While he successfully represented the City <br />of Fort Collins in the Fort Collins litigation, Shimmin <br />explained that he was not appearing before the committee to <br />represent the city's interests either for or against SB 216. <br />io There certainly were a few contrary voices in the General <br />Assembly, questioning whether SB 216 was premature until <br />Golden's water right had been adjudicated. This dissent <br />however, was clearly a minority view that did not prevent SB <br />216's enactment. <br />36 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.