My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Case No. 02SA224 Eagle River Water and Sanitation District Answer Brief February 2003
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
5001-6000
>
Case No. 02SA224 Eagle River Water and Sanitation District Answer Brief February 2003
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/13/2012 4:34:01 PM
Creation date
7/13/2012 4:15:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Case No. 02SA224 Eagle River Water and Sanitation District Answer Brief February 2003
State
CO
Date
2/18/2003
Author
Porzak, Glenn E.; Bushong, Steven J.
Title
Case No. 02SA224 Eagle River Water and Sanitation District 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.
/
86
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
The State and Northern infer the Court was mistaken in its factual finding of control by <br />repeatedly noting the lack of grout in the structures. The undisputed evidence supporting the <br />Court's factual finding, however, is that even without grout between the stones, these massive <br />structures were constructed to "act[] as a single unit, tied together very tightly," without leaking, <br />and are "designed to be permanent and to last indefinitely." (v.XI, p.13,1.9 -15). Moreover, <br />modifications are already designed for the structures (including grout for one structure) which <br />will further enhance performance of the structures and make them appear more like the <br />Breckenridge Park structures. (v.XI, pp.32 -40, 70; Exhibit V -47).3 <br />D. The Amounts Decreed Are Reasonable <br />The Water Court applied the traditional standard of beneficial use and made factual <br />findings that this requirement was satisfied. The State and Northern offered no evidence to the <br />contrary, only argument. In fact, the State's only witnesses on this issue expressly testified that <br />they had made no determination on what was a reasonable amount of water for the structures. <br />(v.XI, p.131,1.1 -4; v.XII p.37,1.5 -11). The following is a summary of the law and facts <br />supporting the Decree, and a response to the State's arguments. <br />1. The Water Court Applied the Appropriate Beneficial Use Standard <br />The Decree applies the statutory definition of "beneficial use" which "is the use of that <br />amount of water that is reasonable and appropriate under reasonably efficient practices to <br />accomplish without waste the purpose for which the appropriation is lawfully made." C.R.S. § <br />' Similarly, the mere fact that some people boated through this reach of Gore Creek at high <br />flows before the structures were built is immaterial. It does not change the fact that the structures <br />control the water for the intended beneficial use and function as designed to create a recreational <br />amenity in Vail Village that did not previously exist and which attracts boaters to the town for <br />"park and play" recreation and competitions. (See, e. v.XI, pp. 74 -75, 77, 41 -43). <br />Sb 1549 -14- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.