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
State and Division Engineers and the Colorado Water Conservation Board ( "CWCB ") <br />(collectively, the "State "), along with the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and its <br />Municipal Subdistrict ( "Northern"), challenged the District's application at trial principally on <br />policy grounds. Northern has no water rights on or downstream of Gore Creek. <br />In rendering its decision, the Water Court applied the same standards it would for any water <br />right, including whether there was a statutory "diversion" of water (which includes in- channel <br />control), and application to "beneficial use" (which includes concepts of reasonableness and <br />waste). Based largely upon uncontested facts, the Water Court held that the structures <br />comprising the Park controlled more than 400 c.f.s. for a beneficial use and were entitled to the <br />requested conditional water rights. The decreed amounts vary monthly depending upon water <br />availability, with a maximum of 400 c.f.s. from May to July, down to a minimum of 48 c.f.s. in <br />October. No flows were claimed from November through February due to icing of the Park <br />which is located at over 8,000 feet. The Water Court held "it was uncontested that the higher the <br />flows, the greater the Park usage and the attendant economic benefit," and the full amount of <br />water is put to beneficial use without waste, and is reasonable in terms of both the intended <br />beneficial use and the factual context of this appropriation on Gore Creek. <br />III. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS <br />A. Vail Intended to Develop a World Class Whitewater Park <br />Vail's local boating community and tourism board made a presentation to Vail's Town <br />Council about the importance of kayaking to the state's economy and asked the Town to consider <br />building a whitewater park. (v.X, pp.23 -24) .' The Town agreed to pursue the idea and, after <br />' To facilitate this Court's review, the complete quotes of the principal trial testimony cited in <br />the Statement of Facts are set forth in the attached App'x A. <br />Sb 1549 -2- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.