My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Case No. 01SA252 Amici Curiae Brief of Colorado Springs Utilities February 2002
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
5001-6000
>
Case No. 01SA252 Amici Curiae Brief of Colorado Springs Utilities February 2002
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/13/2012 10:26:10 AM
Creation date
7/12/2012 4:20:25 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Case No. 01SA252 Amici Curiae Brief of Colorado Springs Utilities February 2002
State
CO
Date
2/7/2002
Author
Pifher, Mark T.; Sinor, Doglas; Miller, Lee E.
Title
Case No. 01SA252 Amici Curiae Brief of Colorado Springs Utilities February 2002
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.
/
24
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
C. AN EXPANSIVE READING OF THE "CONTROL" AND BENEFICIAL USE <br />REQUIREMENTS WOULD HAVE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS. <br />If this court were to endorse the expansive reading of the Fort Collins decision as adopted <br />by the Water Court, so as to find that the installation of the Golden structures resulted in the requisite <br />level of control to effectuate a lawful and efficient diversion for beneficial uses without waste, <br />significant adverse consequences may follow therefrom which would undermine the ability of <br />Colorado's water users to place water to beneficial use at the time and place of need.' <br />Although, Golden may claim that it spent over $200,000 on its course, there exists neither <br />any "level of investment" criteria nor any benchmark as to how elaborate the structures need be in <br />order to effectuate the appropriation. A few well - placed boulders could potentially be adequate. In <br />fact, the Water Court found that each of the Golden structures "concentrate and control the flow of <br />water to create waves and jets of water, self - scouring pools, hydraulic holes, large changes in current <br />direction, and other whitewater features ... " Water Court Decree at page 5.3 Certainly this is not <br />the type of "control" either contemplated by the legislature in codifying the "diversion" requirement <br />or endorsed by this court in the Fort Collins decision. See People v. Hickman, 988 P.2d 628, 634 <br />As further discussed in Subsection D below, such a holding would be contrary to the <br />doctrine of "maximum beneficial use" of state waters. <br />' A study of simple hydraulics confirms that a boulder placed in the river would, at <br />different flow levels, be sufficient to create all of the aforementioned whitewater features. <br />Golden's expert, Jeris Danielson, testified that any boulder in a stream controls the flow of water <br />and that moving a boulder in the stream constitutes control. Record, volume 6 page 42; volume <br />8, p. 150. <br />C:\DATA\PifheI \Golden Appeal\Full Brief 2 -7 -02 glm.wpd <br />February 7, 2002 (1:30pm) <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.