Laserfiche WebLink
<br />f\'"~''?'f'" r <br />.. ~_~ 1o$f <br /> <br />Y <br /> <br />'-"'"1i" ~r~ <br />, I <br />J . 'II 10 ~ <br />.. . <br />'1 -~ .... > <br /> <br />~'1f1l~t- , <br />~jur ~ <br /> <br />,. <br /> <br />DIstnct COUrt, Water DIVISion No I <br />Weld County, Colorado <br /> <br />- - --I <br />- .. <br />. -~ ... <br /> <br />Court Address POBox 2038. <br />Greeley, Colorado 80632 I, _ <, <br />Concernmg the ApphcatIOn for Water Rights of the Colora1:io ; _ ~ <br />Water Conservation Board <br /> <br />In Bear Creek and Turkey Creek or TheIr Tnbutanes <br />In Jefferson County <br />Ken Salazar, Attorney General <br />Alexandra DavIs, ASSIstant Attorney General <br />1525 Sherman Street, 5th FI <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />Phone 303-866-5713 Emall <br />Fax 303~866-3558 Atty Reg # 24531 <br /> <br />COURT USE ONLY <br />Case Number <br />94CW250, 94CW251, <br />94CW256,94CW259,and <br />94CW260 <br /> <br />DIVISIon 1 <br />Courtroom <br /> <br />Matt Machado <br />Law Office of Stephen T WIlliamson <br />POBox 850, 813 Main Stret <br />LOUISVille, CO 80027 <br />Phone 303-666-4060 Emall <br />Fa",303-666-4426 Atty Reg # 31233 <br /> <br />STIPULATION <br /> <br />The Applicant, Colorado Water Conservation Board ("CWCB") and <br />ObJe.ctors~uffaLQJ:~arkJ)eyelop.ment Company, Evergreen Memonal Park, Inc. <br />and Colorado Mountain Properties, Inc , ("Buffalo Park") hereby agree and <br />stipulate as follows <br /> <br />1 The CWCS objected to the application of Buffalo Park In Case No <br />94CW290 On January 31, 2000, the Water Court Judge Issued an order finding <br />that Buffalo Park's earliest priOrity date IS December 30, 1994, and that based on <br />the eVidence before the Court, If the CWCB Instream flow claims were decreed, <br />In the amounts claimed, Buffalo Park could not meet the IIcan and wllIlI test <br /> <br />2 Since the Order was Issued, Buffalo Park, With other applicants and <br />objectors In Case No 94CW290, re-examined the engineering supporting the <br />application The re-examined englneenng was based on the Instream flows <br />claimed In the above-captioned cases being senior to the water nghts being <br />augmented and the exchanges In Case No 94CW290 Based on thiS <br />engineering, which demonstrates that suffiCient exchange potential eXists <br />regardless of the IOstream flows, the eWCB was able to stipulate that the <br />