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
1. The Water Court Applied the App�riate Beneficial Use Standard .. -14- <br />2. The Park Is a Beneficial Use Providing Substantial Economic Benefit -15- <br />3. The Water Court's Factual Finding of Reasonableness and Lack of Waste <br />Are Well Supported by the Evidence .......................... .16- <br />i. The Water Rights Are Reasonable In Terms of the Beneficial Use <br />Sought............ ............................... .16- <br />H. The Water Rights Are Also Reasonable In the Context of Gore <br />Creek and the Downstream Users ...................... .17- <br />4. Appellants' Arguments on Duty of Water Reasonableness Waste and <br />Subiectiveness Are Unsupported By Existing Law and Record Evidenod7- <br />i. No "Duty of Water" Theory Requires an Appropriator to Forego <br />Diversions that Are Applied to Beneficial Use ............ .18- <br />ii. There is Nothing `Subjective" about Maximizing <br />BeneficialUse . ...... ............................... .18- <br />iii. Reasonableness and Waste Require Are Determined on a Case by <br />Case Basis, Not Empirical Formulae and there Are No <br />Inconsistencies Between the District and Golden Decrees ... -19- <br />iv. Denying or Minimizing an Appropriation to Preserve Water for <br />Future Use Is a Concept Long Ago Rejected by This Court . -21- <br />V. The Park Provides the Ultimate in Maximum Utilization .... -22- <br />E. Northern's and the State's Concerns Re ardin-g Future Whitewater Parks Are <br />Inapplicable Here and Already Addressed by Senate Bill 216 ............ .22- <br />F. The District Has the Express and Implied Authority to Appropriate Recreational <br />Water Rights, Whether In- Channel or Out of Channel Directly or by Agreement <br />.............................. ............................... .24- <br />The Colorado Constitution and the 1969 Act Provide Broad Authority to <br />the District to Appropriate Water Rights ....................... .25- <br />2. The District Has Express Statutory Authorit to Acquire the Water Rights <br />atIssue .................. ............................... .26- <br />Sb1549 iii <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.