Laserfiche WebLink
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 <br />Breckenridge's Whitewater Park, the Water Court entered its decree. See App'x B, Findings _of <br />Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decree of the Water Court, Case No. OOCW259 (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 for all three structures, varying by month <br />from 48 c.f.s. up to 400 c.f.S.2 <br />IV. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT <br />The District exercised its constitutional right to appropriate water rights in order to protect <br />Vail's world class whitewater Park. The Water Court applied the traditional standards to <br />determine whether the Park structures "controlled" the water in- channel for application to a <br />"beneficial use." The Water Court's factual findings are well supported in the record and entitled <br />to substantial deference. The State and Northern's efforts to undermine these factual findings <br />are based upon an effort to force consideration of issues appropriate only for absolute water <br />rights; an effort to ignore the statutory definition of a diversion; and a mischaracterization of the <br />evidence considered by the Water Court. <br />On the issue of control, the Park consists of large stone structures that divert flows back and <br />forth across the re- created river channel and create the intended whitewater features by <br />This fall, this Court received briefing and heard oral arguments in a similar case ( "Golden <br />case "). See State Enz'r v. City of Golden, Case No. 01SA252. This Court will also review <br />similar issues in this case's companion case ( "Breckenridge case "). See State Eng'r v. Town of <br />Breckenridge, Case No. 02SA226. The District does not waive any arguments asserted in either <br />the Breckenridge or Golden cases, including arguments raised by amicus parties on Golden's <br />behalf in the Golden case, that are not extensively briefed herein; however, to avoid repetition, <br />the District has not rebriefed some issues extensively briefed in the other cases. These issues are`�_] <br />incorporated by reference to the answer brief in the Breckenridge case ("Breckenridge Brief'). <br />Sb1549 -6- ° "'" <br />