My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PROJ00152
CWCB
>
Loan Projects
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
PROJ00152
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/19/2009 11:25:14 AM
Creation date
10/5/2006 11:40:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Loan Projects
Contract/PO #
C153620
Contractor Name
Clinton Ditch and Reservoir Company
Contract Type
Loan
Water District
36
County
Summit
Bill Number
SB 90-87
Loan Projects - Doc Type
Feasibility Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
189
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
<br />. , <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br />then the junior is allowed to divert water out of turn. This <br />involves a plan for augmentation. "The major use of <br />augmentation plans is to allow new, out-of-priority uses of <br />water to proceed so long as 'augmentation' actions are taken <br />to protect, existing water rights... .Many changes of water <br />rights in Colorado occur in connection with plans for <br /> <br />augmentation" (MacDonnell, 1990, p. 6). The Water Right and <br /> <br /> <br />Determination Act provides: "in the case of plans for <br /> <br /> <br />augmentation including exchange, the supplier may take an <br /> <br /> <br />equivalent amount of water at his point of diversion or <br /> <br /> <br />storage if such water is available without impairing the <br /> <br /> <br />rights of others" (p. 5). The Clinton Reservoir Agreement <br /> <br /> <br />includes a plan for augmentation between the various <br /> <br /> <br />entities. But, "there is some risk to seniors that their <br /> <br />rights will not be satisfied because hydrologic data may be <br /> <br /> <br />in error or the plan will fail for other reasons" (Getches et <br /> <br /> <br />al., 1984, p. 265). The Colorado Supreme Court upheld <br /> <br />augmentation plans in Cache La poudre Water Users Association <br /> <br />v. Glacier View Meadows [550 P.2d 288 (1976)]. In the <br />opinion (p. 296), the court stated "If the plan for <br />...~: <br />'augmentation is operated in accordance with the detailed <br />conditions herein, it will have the effect of replacing water <br />in the stream at the times and places and in the amounts of <br /> <br />the depletions caused by the development's use of water" (p. <br /> <br />296) . <br /> <br />The relative location of junior and senior appropriators <br />is extremely important. However, Colorado allows <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.