Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-"".l <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />II. Undisputed Facts. <br /> <br />~. Water Supply and Storage Company and City of Fort <br />Collins are water users who do now export water from Jackson <br />County for use in Larimer County. <br /> <br />b. The limit set by the U.S. Supreme Court in <br />Nebraska v. Wyoming, supra has not been reached so more water can <br />be appropriated and exported out of Jackson County. <br /> <br />c. The water needs of both entities continue to grow <br />with the demand for agricultural products and with the increasing <br />populations and industrial growth of the City of Fort Collins. <br />Those entities will, no doubt, in the future look to appropriate <br />and export more water from Jackson County and particularly from <br />the North Fork and South Fork of the Michigan River. <br /> <br />d. Those future appropriations on the North Fork and <br />South Fork of the Michigan River would be diverted above or <br />within the minimum flow segments designated in the application of <br />this case. <br /> <br />e. If, when one of these entities called for water <br />from Jackson County under a future right, there is not the <br />minimum flow here applied for, then these appropriators could not <br />divert water thereby depriving them of water heretofore made <br />available for their appropriation by the U.S. Supreme Court. <br /> <br />III. Disputed Facts. <br /> <br />a. Is the injury that could result to these <br />Protesters material? <br /> <br />b. <br />preserve and <br />reasonable? <br /> <br />To what degree will these minimum flow rights <br />protect the natural environment? Is that <br /> <br />c. Is this minimum flow right needed to protect the <br />environment to a reasonable degree? If so, is the quantity of <br />water claimed reasonable? Do these minimum flow applications <br />satisfy the statutes test of balancing the positive effect on the <br />natural environment against the negative effect on other <br />appropriators. <br /> <br />IV. Points of Law. <br /> <br />a. The law requires conditions or subordination of <br />this minimum flow right to any water right appropriating and <br />exporting water up to the limits established and made available <br />by the U.S. Supreme Court equitable apportionment decision of <br />Nebraska v. Wyoming, 325 u.S. 589 (1945) modified January 14, <br />1953. <br />