Laserfiche WebLink
L <br /> Response: Boaters have utilized the Breckenridge Whitewater Park for the <br /> beneficial use of recreational boating since its construction was completed. Breckenridge <br /> began recording daily Whitewater Park use in May 2007. Accordingly,the absolute <br /> claims sought by Breckenridge are those maximum stream flow rates that occurred on <br /> dates when the Breckenridge recorded use at the Whitewater Park. The Whitewater Park <br /> use data is attached hereto as Exhibit B. <br /> 3. Concern: The applicants claim to enlarge the amounts to be made absolute while <br /> 0 this application is pending can only be allowed by amendment and republication. <br /> Response: At the present time,Breckenridge does not seek to make absolute any <br /> water rights additional to those absolute amounts set forth in the application. However, <br /> Breckenridge reserves the right to do so as it stated in its application based on the <br /> following legal analysis. <br /> Originally,the diligence statute required that applications for diligence needed to <br /> be filed every two years. Water Right Determination and Administration Act of 1969, <br /> ch. 373, § 148-21-17. This was later amended to be every four years. H.B. 1269 (1988). <br /> Under both prior diligence laws, there was no gap in the years that were considered in <br /> determining whether an applicant was diligent and whether a water right was made <br /> absolute. <br /> In 1990 the law was amended to require diligence every six years,but the six year <br /> period commenced on the date of the original decree and, thereafter, the date of entry for <br /> subsequent diligence decrees. S.B. 90-13 (1990), codified at § 37-92-301(4)(a)(I), C.R.S. <br /> (2008). This change was made to reflect the fact that diligence applications often took <br /> greater than four years to adjudicate. Thus, there were often one or more diligence <br /> applications pending for the same water right. <br /> However, as a result of the new law,there could be a gap in the years considered <br /> for purposes of diligence and absolute conversion if the years between the filing of the <br /> application for diligence or to make water rights absolute and the date of the entry of the <br /> eventual decree were not considered. As a result, it has been the uniform position of the <br /> Court in all of the diligence/absolute cases in Division 5 of which we are aware that those <br /> intervening years are considered. <br /> Given the foregoing,Breckenridge's application notified all interested parties that <br /> it"reserves the right to make additional portions of the water right absolute based upon <br /> flows and use that occur while this application is pending." Sufficient resume notice <br /> requires a water right applicant to meet the inquiry notice standard according to which <br /> interested parties are informed of the"nature, scope, and impact"of a proposed diversion. <br /> City of Thornton v. Bijou Irrigation Co., 926 P.2d 1,24(Colo. 1996). The courts have <br /> "consistently accepted a broad definition of inquiry notice," and where they have"held <br /> notice to be inadequate, the resumes are characterized by the complete absence of <br /> material information . . . ." Id. at 25. In the present application, all interested parties <br /> were on notice of the total conditional decreed amounts and that Breckenridge reserved <br /> 28062 2 <br />