WSP06763 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.-.~ , on Taylor Park Reservoir on December 30, 1986. The District's first proposal (86CW202) sought additional uses of water from Taylor Park to include recreation and fishery with an appropriation date of August 28, 1975. A second proposal (86CW203) sought a refill decree for Taylor Park to be used for recreational purposes including wildlife within the reservoir and fishery within and downstream of the reservoir. The claimed appropriation date was October 31, 1970. The issue of whether the conservancy district could obtain a right to designate reservoir releases for stream flow enhancement for fishery and recreation was at question in both cases. The Colorado Water Conservation Board objected on the basis that under 37-92- 203(3) C.R.S., it had the exclusive authority to seek adjudication of minimum in-stream flow rights. In a May 5, 1988 ruling on a Motion for Summary Judgment, the Division IV Water Court held that by capturing and then releasing the water, that the District's application did not constitute applications for naturally occurring in-stream flow. It was determined to be a diversion for beneficial use, the right being protected by the state constitution. The applications remain before the Court. SHARED ISSUES--PUBLIC TRUST. MAXIMUM UTILIZATION Several statements of opposition were filed in both the Aurora (86CW37) and NECO (86CW226) cases in which there were similar issues. To simplify the issues, the Water Court entertained several Motions for Summary Judgment to delete certain issues from future proceedings. The major issue (whether public interest issues should be considered) is the subject of a pending appeal to the Supreme Court. Public interest issues include the ideas of public value, maximum utilization and public trust. The Public Trust Doctrine involves the concept that in the allocation of public resources, the court should consider what is in the best interest of the public. Applicant's Motions for Summary Judgment sought to delete public interest issues from consideration. Conservation groups opposing the applications contended that the Public Trust Doctrine should be considered in the court's review. The Water Court rejected consideration of public interest issues. Judge Brown's May 5, 1988 order determined that by the adoption of the doctrine of prior appropriation in the State Constitution, Colorado had rejected the public value doctrine as a carry-over from common law. Although Fellhauer v. People set the stage for future consideration of public interest, the lack of specific legislative direction left the court without authority; The Division IV Water Court decision on the public interest issues has been appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court after an order entering Final Judgment under Rule 54(b) c.R.C.P. was entered July 12, 1988. NEro APPLICATION DETERMINED SPECULATIVE. ARAPAHOE REAPPLIES Several objectors filed Motions for Summary Judgment in case 86CW226 on the basis that NECO's application was speculative. The original NECO plan involved only an in-basin peaking power operation while the 1986 application sought a much greater amount of water for export for municipal use. The 1986 application included only two minor supply contracts and NECO itself had no direct use for the water. In a December 29, 1988 Summary Judgment, Judge Brown determined that the anti- speculation doctrine requires the applicant to identify the use of the water, the place of use and the ultimate users of the water, together with a definite commitment from the ultimate users. It was further found that these specifics of the plan to appropriate water must be identified at the time of filing. Because the application must not be speculative at the time of filing, the substitution of Arapahoe County on September 1, 1988 did not cure the