Therefore, in this latest appeal, TU proclaimed an “Advisory Listing of Issues to be Raised on Appeal.” They include:
• Whether applicants (the districts) demonstrated the 50-year water rights planning horizon adopted by the water court to be reasonable, as required under the anti-speculation standard.
• Whether applicants substantiated population projections, based on a normal rate of growth, for the 50-year planning period, as required under the anti-speculation standard.
• Whether applicants demonstrated that the decreed amount of water is reasonably necessary, above their current water supply, to serve projected population through the planning period, as required under the anti-speculation standard.
The appeal also states, “The transcript of evidence taken before the trial court is necessary to resolve the issues raised on appeal.”
Letter to the editor from CTU President Ken Neubecker.
Pagosa Daily Post
Glenn Walsh | 10/30/08
PAWSD presently has the right to divert 6300 acre feet of water from the San Juan River for storage and to pump 6.9 cubic feet per second from the river to its Snowball treatment facility. The 150 cfs grant in Lyman’s decision represents a more than twenty-fold increase. Significantly, the 150 cfs right is 700% larger than the right the water districts’ engineer Steve Harris claimed was necessary to meet 2040 demand in his initially engineering report for the Dry Gulch reservoir.
Pagosa Daily Post
Sheila Berger | 10/29/08
The Appeal is based upon three issues: the reasonableness of a 50-year planning horizon, whether the 50-year population projections can be substantiated based upon a normal rate of growth, and whether the applicants sufficiently demonstrated that the decreed amount of water is reasonably necessary to serve this projected population.
“A no vote on 58 benefits only the wildly profitable energy industry. Voting yes assists various important state programs, not least its wildlife….”
“A long list of organizations that includes every major wildlife organization, the Farm Bureau, Colorado Forum, Colorado Center on Law and Policy and virtually every water conservancy districts on both sides of the Continental Divide oppose Amendment 52.”