Laserfiche WebLink
4 <br /> <br /> <br />21. The consensus of experts in the water-supply industry fs that <br />discharge of sewage effluent into the source of a municipal water supply should be <br />avoided where alternatives are available, because of its adverse effects on public <br />health. <br />22. The addition of pollution to the municipal water supplies of Thornton <br />and Westminster would require increased expenditures for water treatment by <br />those cities. This would impose the costs of Golden's pollution and out~f-priority <br />water supply on Thornton and Westminster. No finding can be made on the <br />amount of expenditure that will be required in response to already-permitted and <br />decreed uses of water on Clear Creek upstream of the intakes to Standley <br />Reservoir. <br />23. Under the circumstances of this case, the safety of Golden's proposal <br />has not been shown. The burden of proof is on Golden; it did not meet that <br />burden. Moreover, it is the Objectors who have proved by a preponderance of the <br />evidence that, under the terms and conditions proposed, the GWTP effluent does <br />not meet the quality requirements of use to which the receiving waters have <br />normally been put. Golden's plan would injuriously affect the Objectors es the <br />owners and users of vested water rights and decreed conditional rights. <br />24. The actual uses now normally made of water from Standley Reservoir <br />include irrigation, municipal and recreational uses. The predominant use now <br />normally made of water from Standley Reservoir is municipal use. <br />25. There are other sources of pollution within the basin tributary to <br />Standley Reservoir. This does not justify additional injury. The addition of <br />effluent to Standley Reservoir will have significant adverse impact regardless of <br />the level of pollution to which it is added. <br />26. The water diverted to Standley Reservoir from Clear Creek has <br />historically been acceptable in quality. It has met the requirements of Thornton's <br />and Westminster's uses with conventional water treatment, and has met the <br />requirements of FRICO's agricultural uses without treatment. <br />CONCLUSIONS OP LAW <br />27. The Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties, <br />including those who received actual or constructive notice of the Application but <br />did not appear. <br />28. The issue of the quality of Golden's effluent is properly before this <br />court pursuant to C.R.S. 537-92-305(3) and (5) and 537-80-120, <br />29. Golden, as the applicant, has the burden of proof. Golden must prove <br />by a preponderance of evidence the absence of injurious effect. Golden must also <br />prove that the quality of the water it would furnish to Objectors meets the <br />• requirements for which the water of the objectors has normally been used. Golden <br />-5- <br />