Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer

(Download) "State Engineer And Division Engineer For Water Division No. 1 V. Castle Meadows Inc." by Colorado Supreme Court # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free

State Engineer And Division Engineer For Water Division No. 1 V. Castle Meadows Inc.

📘 Read Now     📥 Download


eBook details

  • Title: State Engineer And Division Engineer For Water Division No. 1 V. Castle Meadows Inc.
  • Author : Colorado Supreme Court
  • Release Date : January 12, 1993
  • Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
  • Pages : * pages
  • Size : 88 KB

Description

In these consolidated cases,*fn1 the State Engineer and the Division Engineer for Water Division No. 1 (collectively, state engineer) appeal those portions of judgments of the District Court for Water Division No. 1 approving plans for augmentation proposed by the applicants in each case.*fn2 In Case Number 92SA163 the district court held an evidentiary hearing pursuant to our order of remand in Danielson v. Castle Meadows, Inc., 791 P.2d 1106 (1990) (Castle Meadows I), to determine whether the pumping of not nontributary ground water from the Denver aquifer by Castle Meadows, Inc. will result in post-withdrawal depletions in the South Platte River system that will injure others who hold water rights. In Case Number 92SA164 the district court held a trial pursuant to an application filed on behalf of Castle Pines Metropolitan District, Castle Pines Land Company, the Friedkin Companies, and Friedkin Investments, Inc. in which the parties sought a decree entitling them to withdraw Denver aquifer ground water and approving an augmentation plan in the event that this water was determined to be not nontributary. Because both cases raised the issue of whether other water rights will be injured by post-withdrawal stream depletions that will result from the applicants' pumping of Denver aquifer ground water, the district court entered a single Memorandum of Decision and Order in which it determined that no such injury will result and then entered judgments in each case approving the applicants' proposed plans for augmentation. Because we conclude that the district court erred when it considered evidence of additional water that will become available in the form of runoff as a result of increased development of the surrounding land areas in making its determinations, we reverse its judgments in part and remand the cases to that court to reconsider under the principles we now set forth whether the applicants' pumping of their decreed amounts of water will cause post-withdrawal depletions to the surface stream system that will injure holders of water rights.


Ebook Free Online "State Engineer And Division Engineer For Water Division No. 1 V. Castle Meadows Inc." PDF ePub Kindle