Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I . <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />101. The Court further finds that all other objections raised by CPA are without <br />factual basis. <br /> <br />III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br /> <br />1. The Court incorporates its previous [mdings of fact and conclusions of law <br />as set forth in its prior Orders in these cases. In the event of any conflict between <br />previous orders and this decree, this decree shall control. <br /> <br />2. Modification of a consent decree, like modification of any judgment or <br />order, is formally governed by Rule 60(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Rufo v. <br />Inmates ofSilffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367,378-380 (1992). Rule 60(b)(4), C.R.C.P. <br />is the generally applicable rule for modifying a previously issued judgment when "it is no <br />longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application." See Building <br />and Construction Trades Council v. National Labor Relations Board 64 F.3d 880, 888 <br />(3d Cir.1995). <br /> <br />3. lbis is a limited review because a "court should do no more, for a consent <br />decree is a final judgment that may be reopened only to the extent that equity requires." <br />Mar. 7 Order at 10, citing Rufo. supra_and eR.c.p. 60(b)(4). <br /> <br />4. "[T]he United States, as sovereign, is 'immune from suit save as it <br />consents to be sued. . . and the tenus of its consent to be sued in any court define that <br />court's jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Lehman v. Nakshian. 453 U.S. 156, 160 (1981) <br />citing United States v. Testan. 424 U.S. 392,399 (1976). In this case, the applicable <br />waiver of sovereign immunity is the McCarrim Amendment, 43 U.S.C. 9 666. The <br />jurisdiction of this Water Court over the United States, therefore, is limited by the express <br />terms of the McCarran Amendment to the "adjudication of rights to the use of water of a <br />river system or other source, or (2) for the administration of such rights, . . . ." The <br />McCarran Amendment requires the federal government to assert any and all claims to the <br />use of water in a comprehensive state adjudication of water rights. In re AODlication for <br />Water Rigbts of U.s., 101 P.3d 1072, 1079 (Colo.2004). <br /> <br />5. Tbis CoUrt's jurisdiction with respect to the actions of the United States <br />regarding ALP is limited to the adjudication and administration of the water rights <br />associated with the project. The merits of Congress' determinations in the 2000 . <br />Settlement Act Amendments, including the design, construction, and operation of ALP, <br />and the revised settlement of the Ute Tribal claims on the Animas and La Plata Rivers. <br />are not before this Comt. See In re Application for Water Rights of United States. supra. <br /> <br />6. 'This Court has already found that the applicable standard for review of the <br />Motion to Amend imder C.R.C.P. 60 (b)(4) is fOlUld in Rufo,_supra: <br /> <br />Under the Rufo standard, to the extent it is applicable here, the moVing party first <br /> <br />29 <br /> <br />