Laserfiche WebLink
<br />RECEIVED <br />MAR 0 4 1997 <br /> <br />Jim Lochhead <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />Colorado Waler <br />Conservation Bo81d <br /> <br />CONFIDENTIAL <br /> <br />Third, note the language of paragraph 4 on future water develop- <br />ment. My immediate reaction is that it is consistent with <br />Colorado's new development proposal. <br /> <br />Finally, the Wyoming stipulation does not include a provision that <br />the parties will not raise these issues (however they're defined) <br />in other litigation. There was a paragraph to that effect in <br />Colorado's proposed stipulation and I think it's essential to <br />protect us from new litigation on the South Platte. I mentioned <br />this concern at the meeting. <br /> <br />We need to discuss Wyoming's proposal and be prepared to respond by <br />the next, Nebraska v. Wvominq meeting on March 25th (here in <br />Denver) . ' <br /> <br />Also, Owen alpin showed up in the afternoon for part of the meeting <br />to offer his help or encouragement. Our next status conference <br />will be April 3rd in Pasadena. Although his last order stated that <br />this was the "final stay," yesterday he left the door open for <br />further stays. <br /> <br />Attachments <br /> <br />cc: Hal Simpson (w/attachments) <br />Chuck Lile " <br />Joe Smith " <br />