WATER - Trout Unlimited claimed that several water districts failed to prove their intent to make a non-speculative, conditional water appropriation and that the lower court should not have adjudicated water rights based on projected demands nearly 100 years into the future. J. Hobbs holds that the lower court must still determine a reasonable water supply planning period, the substantiated population projections for future growth in the districts, and the future land use mixes and per capita usage requirements. Reversed. See modified, en banc ruling in Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District v. Trout Unlimited
Categories:Uncategorized
Read the Top 8
Sign up for the Top 8, a roundup of the day's top stories delivered directly to your inbox Monday through Friday.
