Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />t! <br /> <br />.~ <br /> <br />settlements in Case Nos. 1603-76F and W-1603-76J and all other settlements that address <br />rivers other than the Animas and La Plata Rivers, are res judicata and may not be <br />reopened. See Mar. 7 Order at 16; July 7 Order at 15. <br /> <br />j <br />( <br />~ <br />, <br />i <br /> <br />28. Likewise, there is no basis in law for CPA's claim that the 2000 <br />Settlement Act Amendments would allow use of water outside the State of Colorado. <br />Use of the Ute Tribes' reserved water rights is governed by this Court's decrees and not <br />by the 2000 Settlement Act Amendments. See In re Apolication for Water Rights of <br />U.S., supra. <br /> <br />"~ <br /> <br />29 This Court finds as a matter of law that the requested extensions of <br />deadlines for ALP construction and water delivery to the Tribes or, in the alternative, for <br />the determination by the Ute Tribes to agree to the settlement or commence litigation of <br />the tribal Claims on the Animas and La Plata Rivers, are appropriate and reasonable and <br />meet the second part of the Rufo test. First, this Court has already determined that <br />significant circumstances exist that warrant amending the 1991 Consent Decrees. <br />Second, the proposed change is tailored to resolve the problems created by the change in <br />circumstances. <br /> <br />30. The Court further concludes that CPA presented no evidence of injury to <br />water rights on the Animas or La Plata Rivers resulting from approval of the Stipulations <br />to Amend and the Change Applications. All other objections raised by CP A are without <br />legal basis. <br /> <br />31. . The Court now determines as a matter of law that the second part of Rufo <br />is satisfied and that the Motions to Amend and Stipulations for Amendment of Consent <br />Decree are suitably tailored to implement the change in law set forth in the 2000 <br />Settlement Act Amendments. See Rufo, supra, 502 U.S. at 393. <br /> <br />32. The Division Engineer is lawfully required to administer diversions under <br />the Water Right tliat is the subject of this Decree pursuant to Colorado law. <br /> <br />33. This Court has jurisdiction over these proceedings and over the persons <br />and water rights affected thereby, whether theyhave appeared or not. <br /> <br />34. Full and adequate notice of these proceedings and the matters adjudicated <br />herein has been given in the manner required by law. <br /> <br />35. Applicant has met all burdens of proof and complied with all standards <br />applicable to the water rights addressed herein. <br /> <br />34 <br /> <br />