Laserfiche WebLink
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are <br />available to the public and can be accessed <br />through the Court's homepage at <br />http: / /www. courts .state.co.us /supct /supct.htm <br />Opinions are also posted on the Colorado Bar <br />Association homepage at www.cobar.org. <br />ADVANCE SHEET HEADNOTE <br />October 22, 2007 <br />No. 06SA338, Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District and San <br />Juan River Conservancy District v. Trout Unlimited Conditional <br />Water Right - § 37 -92- 103(6) - Elements of Governmental Agency <br />Non - Speculative Intent to Appropriate Unappropriated Water - <br />Reasonable Water Supply Planning Period for the Conditional <br />Appropriation - Substantiated Population Projections - <br />Reasonable Amount of Water Necessary to Serve Population During <br />Planning Period Above Current Water Supply - Can and Will Test - <br />§ 37- 92- 103(3)(a) - § 37- 92- 305(9)(b) - Maximum Utilization - <br />Optimum Use - Water Court Findings of Fact, Judgment, and Decree <br />- Unresolved Factual Findings - Reasonable Planning Period - <br />Future Land Use Mixes - Implementation of Water Conservation <br />Measures - Per Capita Water Usage Requirements - Reuse - Measure <br />of Consumptive Use Reasonably Needed to Serve Population <br />The water court entered a conditional decree for the Pagosa <br />Area Water and Sanitation District and the San Juan River Water <br />Conservancy District for a planning period extending one hundred <br />years. Trout Unlimited contends in this appeal that the <br />districts did not carry their burden of proving their intent and <br />need for the amount of water the water court conditionally <br />decreed to the districts. <br />The Supreme Court holds that a governmental water supply <br />agency has the burden of demonstrating three elements in regard <br />to its intent to make a non - speculative conditional <br />