My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Case No. 02SA226 Town of Breckenridge Answer Brief February 2003
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
5001-6000
>
Case No. 02SA226 Town of Breckenridge Answer Brief February 2003
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/16/2012 9:02:18 AM
Creation date
7/13/2012 4:15:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Case No. 02SA226 Town of Breckenridge Answer Brief February 2003
State
CO
Date
2/18/2003
Author
Porzak, Glenn E.; Bushong, Steven J.
Title
Case No. 02SA226 Town of Breckenridge Answer Brief February 2003
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.
/
116
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 />I. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ......... ............................... .1- <br />II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE ........... ............................... .1- <br />III. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ......... ............................... .2- <br />A. Breckenridize Intended to Develop a World Class Whitewater Park ......... .2- <br />B. The Park's Structures Were Designed and Constructed to be Optimal at 500 c.f.s3- <br />C. The Structures Control Flows to Create the Intended Whitewater Features . -3- <br />D. The Amount of Beneficial Use is Directly Correlated to the Amount of <br />Diversion....................... ............................... .4- <br />E. Water is Available for Appropriation ............................... .4- <br />F. The Water Court Granted Conditional Water Rijzhts for the Park ........... .5- <br />IV. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ........ ............................... .5- <br />V. ARGUMENT ............................ ............................... .7- <br />A. The Water Court's Factual Findings are Entitled to Substantial Deference ... -7- <br />B. Breckenridge Met the Legal 1 Requirements to Obtain Conditional Water Rights -8- <br />C. The Park Structures Control Water in the Channel as Required for an <br />Appropriation ................... ............................... .10- <br />1. "Diversion" May Occur by In- Channel Control of Water and Control <br />Occurs When Structures Function as Desi ned .................. .11- <br />2. Undisputed Evidence Supports the Water Court's Factual Finding of <br />Control.................. ............................... .13- <br />3. The State's Arguments Ignore Undisputed Facts and Law ......... .14- <br />i. Diversion Does NOT Require Water Removal or Impoundment 14- <br />ii. Breckenridge Claims Water Rights for Structures, Not an In- <br />Stream Flow ........ ............................... .15- <br />Sb1546 -11- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.