Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.' <br /> <br />-- ------ <br /> <br />NO.7 (11 Jan 71) the United States amended its application <br /> <br /> <br />so that each river or creek named in the original application <br /> <br />would be separately filed. The amended applications were <br /> <br /> <br />filed February 2. 1917 and referred to the referee on Febru- <br /> <br /> <br />ary 1. 1911. Statements of opposition were then filed by <br /> <br /> <br />numerous otner parties in addition to the State of Colorado. <br /> <br /> <br />After joinder of the United States in the state court <br /> <br /> <br />proceeding but prior to the filing of the applications by <br /> <br />the United States in W-lbOj-7b. the Water Court for Division <br /> <br /> <br />1 had issued findings of the law of the case and order (Octo- <br /> <br /> <br />ber 6. 1976) which effectively denied the United State's <br /> <br /> <br />claim to reserved water rights. The order found the United <br /> <br /> <br />States' claims are subject to tne same standards and proce- <br /> <br /> <br />dures as other claims and may not be based upon reserved <br /> <br />rights. The court precluded the reserved rights claims <br /> <br />primarily because of laches on the part of the United States <br /> <br />and the admission to statehood of the State of Colorado. <br /> <br /> <br />(See. infra). <br /> <br /> <br />After Judge Eake's order of October b~h the United <br /> <br /> <br />States filed a motion to vacate the findings of law of the <br /> <br /> <br />caSe and order and alternatively, a Motion to postpone trial <br /> <br />indefinitely pending a decision by the Colorado Supreme <br /> <br />Court in the Oivision 4, 5, and 6 cases which involve many <br /> <br /> <br />of the same issues. Subsequently a stipulation postponing <br /> <br />-j- <br />