BOARD02473 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

185 . . 1992). If relief could be granted to Trout Unliri1ited and Colorado Wild under any theory of law. their appeal would be sufficient to survive the Dundee motion to dismiss. Rosenthal v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.. 908 P.2d 1095 (Colo. 1995). In most ci1'cwnstances. the Dundee motion to dismiss would be resolved solely on the basis of the Appellants' allegations in the appeal. National Camera, Inc. v. Sanche~ 832 P.2d 960 (Colo. App. 1991). For the purposes of resolving this motion, those allegations must be accepted as true. Rosenthal, 908 P.2d at 1099. As discussed earlier, the Commission also considered in resolving the motion to dismiss the Division certification letter. That letter expressed the Division's factual basis and legal conclusions for issuing the certification and fonus part of the background for this appeal. Finally. the Commission concluded that undisputed factual representations contained in the pleadings filed by the parties ate appropriate lnfonnation to provide a context for its decision. While the parties are free to characterize the claims in the appeal as they wish, the Commission's role at this stage is not to make any detennination regarding disputed facts and the Commission makes no such conclusions in issuing this order. The Commission takes action on this motion to dismiss solely on the basis of the record and those facts not in dispute. The parties filing an appeal do not need to precisely set forth the underlying facts so long as the basis for the appeal can be clearly discerned. Shockley v. Georgetown Valley Water & San. Dist., 37 Colo. App. 434, 548 P.2d 928 (1976). Following review of the certification letter,the pleadings of the parties and argwnents by counsel, the Commission concluded that the focus of this motion, the relief requested by the Appellants, can be clearly discerned, Section 25-8-104(1) prohibits interpretations and applications of the Act that would impair rights to divert and apply water to beneficial uses, result in material injury to water rights, or require minimum stream flows. The Commission's Regulation No. 82, section 82.5(A)(S), also prohibits denial of a certification request "where the imposition of conditions or denial would result in material injury to water rights as prohibited under section 25-8-104, C.R.S." .. The Division's authority to impose conditions or deny a certification is not limited to just the discharge that triggers the requirement for a 9 404 pern1it (in this case, the dredge and/or fiU to construct the diversion structure) or its effects. That authority extends to the construction and operation of the project once the element of a discharge is established. PUD No. I of Jefferson County v, Washington Department ofEcoloRY, 511 U.S. 700 (1994). Under Colorado law, though, both the Division and the Commission are subject to the limits imposed by sections 25-8-104 and 25-8-302(1 )(t), The Colorado Supreme Court, in City of Thornton v. Bijou Irrigation Co., 926 P .2d 1, 92 (Colo. 1996) observed that Colorado's water rights and water quality 5 e -'.