My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Case No. 01SA252 Brief of Amici Curiae February 2002
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
5001-6000
>
Case No. 01SA252 Brief of Amici Curiae February 2002
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/13/2012 10:27:38 AM
Creation date
7/12/2012 4:20:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Case No. 01SA252 Brief of Amici Curiae February 2002
State
CO
Date
2/7/2002
Author
Robbins, David W.; Montfomery, Dennis M.; Wells, Patricia L.; Lawrence, Kim R.; Maynes, Frank E.; Dingess, John M.; Miller, Lee E.
Title
Case No. 01SA252 Brief of Amici Curiae 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.
/
30
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
TABLE OF CONTENTS <br />Page No. <br />I. Statement of the Issues. Presented for Review ... ............................... 2 <br />II. Statement of the Case ...................... ............................... 2 <br />A. Nature of the Case .................................................. 2 <br />B. The Course of Proceedings and the Disposition Below ..................... 3 <br />C. Statement of Facts .................... ..............................3 <br />III. Summary of Argument ...................... ..............................6 <br />IV. Argument ................................ ..............................7 <br />A. Limitations in the Definitions of "Diversion" and `Beneficial Use" Must <br />Be Carefully Observed Since Instream Flows for Recreational Boating <br />Could Deprive the People of the State of Colorado of the Beneficial Use <br />of Waters to Which the State of Colorado is Equitably Entitled ............. 7 <br />B. At Flows In Excess of 30 c.f.s., Golden's Structures and Devices Do Not <br />Control Water in its Natural Course Or Location Within the Meaning of <br />Section 37 -92- 103(7) and Therefore Do Not Constitute a Diversion <br />Under Section 37- 92- 103(7) ......... ............................... 11 <br />C. The Amounts Claimed by Golden and Awarded by the Water Court Are <br />Not Beneficial as Defined in Section 37- 92- 103(4) ...................... 15 <br />D. Maintaining a Flow is a Riparian Concept, Thus Unrecognizable by <br />the Prior Appropriation Doctrine ..... ............................... 20 <br />V. Conclusion .............................. .............................23 <br />1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.