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
Similarly, the alleged "inconsistencies" between the District and Golden Decrees only <br />reflect factual differences. For example, the District did not seek a year -round water right as did <br />Golden because the higher altitude of the Park (over 8,000 feet) and its mountain location mean <br />the Park is often covered with ice in the winter. That is not an inconsistency as the State alleges, <br />it is a factual difference. <br />Finally, in contrast to its argument that the high flows are wasted, the State also claims that <br />lower flows (less than 200 c.f.s.) are wasted because no whitewater features are formed. State's <br />Br. at 24. There is likewise no basis to reverse the Water Court on this issue. <br />First, the Town's intent was to build a course for the beginner to elite boater, and novice <br />boaters use the Park at lower flows. (v.XI, p.43,1.5 -9). The Town did not limit its application to <br />large whitewater features and such features are not a pre - requisite for beneficial use, only for <br />maximum beneficial use. Indeed, use occurred at all flows in 2001. (v.XI, pp.43 -44, 88; v.X, <br />pp.55 -56). Second, the Court expressly acknowledged this fact, holding that "the water diverted <br />and controlled by the Park at these lower flows [claimed in some months] is also beneficially <br />used for recreational purposes." Decree p. 5. Third, these are conditional water rights and plans <br />to improve the performance of these structures at all flow levels have already been designed. <br />Next, it is undisputed that the structures made the reach of Gore Creek boatable at low flows <br />when it would not have otherwise been passable. (v.XI, p.41,1.8 -11). Finally, contrary to the <br />State's premise, the Water Court in fact held that whitewater features begin to occur at 30 c.f.s. <br />and the record supports the Water Court's finding. Decree at 6.4 <br />a Mr. Lacy testified that in terms of hydraulic principles, the low flow and high flow channels <br />function the same to control the water for the intended beneficial use. (v.XI, p.20). By <br />concentrating the water in this fashion, boatable features such as eddies and jets are created. <br />(v.XI, p.30). Although, as noted by the State, Mr. Lacy was not sure exactly when so- called <br />Sb1549 -20- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.