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
has already considered precisely the same policy arguments raised by the State in passing SB <br />216, thus rendering the State's arguments moot. In passing SB 216, the General Assembly <br />acknowledged the validity of such water rights while imposing factors for the Water Court to <br />consider in future applications. Existing applications, like Breckenridge's, were exempted. <br />1. SB 216 Was a Response to Pending RICD Applications <br />During a break in the trial of the Golden case, with the Breckenridge and Vail cases also <br />pending, the CWCB sponsored SB 216. A prior "white paper" circulated by the CWCB states <br />that one of the reasons it sought to change the law is the "broad language in the Fort Collins <br />case" and "[t]he Fort Collins holding merely requires a water user to concentrate the flow of <br />water to serve an intended purpose." See App'x F, White Paper at 2, (v.IV, pp.790 -797). As <br />proposed, SB 216 would have completely altered existing law by providing the CWCB with <br />authority to decide RICD applications, subject to mere arbitrary and capricious review by the <br />Water Court, and the bill would have applied retroactively to existing applications. See App'x <br />G, proposed SB 216 (v.IV, pp.805 -811). <br />After much debate, the General Assembly passed a modified form of SB 216. See App'x <br />H. The bill that passed confirms that RICDs are a beneficial use and limits the CWCB's role to <br />making rebuttable recommendations to the Water Court after holding its own hearing. See §§ <br />37- 92- 102(6), - 103(4), - 305(13). The bill provides factors to consider for RICD applications, <br />such as potential impact on compact entitlements, appropriate stream reach, access, and <br />maximum utilization. 12 §§ 37- 92- 102(5)(b), - 305(13). Notably, the bill was revised so that it's <br />12 It should be noted that all.these factors were expressly considered by the Water Court in the <br />Breckenridge case and noted in the Decree. <br />Sb1546 -27- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.