Laserfiche WebLink
the water that passes through the Park is commanded downstream by senior water rights. (v.VII, <br />pp. 117-120). Prior to Breckenridge's application, there were only two weeks in the previous six <br />years when the Park's water was not being called by a downstream user. (v.VII, p.120,1.21 -24). <br />Breckenridge is simply adding a new use which works in tandem with these downstream calls. <br />(Id.). <br />F. The Water Court Granted Conditional Water Rights for the Park <br />After three days of trial and a consolidated closing argument with the Town of Vail's <br />Whitewater Park,' the Water Court entered its decree. See App'x C, Findings of Fact, <br />Conclusions of Law, and Decree of the Water Court, Case No. OOCW281 (June 5, 2002) <br />[hereinafter Decree]. Based upon detailed findings of fact, and addressing all requirements of <br />law, the Water Court decreed conditional water rights, varying by month from 39 c.f.s. to 500 <br />c.f.s., for all fifteen structures. <br />IV. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT <br />Breckenridge exercised its constitutional right to appropriate water rights in order to protect <br />its world class whitewater Park. The Water Court applied the traditional standards to determine <br />whether the Park structures "controlled" the water in- channel for application to a "beneficial <br />use." The Water Court's factual findings are well supported in the record and entitled to <br />substantial deference. The State's efforts to undermine these factual findings are based upon an <br />effort to force consideration of issues appropriate only for absolute water rights; a concerted <br />This fall, this Court received briefing and heard oral arguments in a similar case ( "Golden <br />case "). See State Eng'r v. City of Golden, Case No. 01 SA252. This Court will also review <br />similar issues in this case's companion case ( "Vail case "). See State En 'r v. Eagle River Water <br />& Sanitation Dist., Case No. 02SA224. Breckenridge does not waive any arguments asserted in <br />either the Vail or Golden cases, including arguments raised by amicus parties on Golden's behalf <br />in the Golden case, that are not extensively briefed herein; however, to avoid repetition, <br />Breckenridge has not re- briefed some issues extensively briefed in the Golden case. <br />SbI546 -5- <br />