Laserfiche WebLink
days or less (Hobbs probably read that and said good idea!) (Objectors mean how <br />many statements of opposition were filed at the very beginning...) (how many go <br />to trial?...) For time period: 1.5% went to trail before water judge: 18 years ago: <br />division engineers should be water judges... these statistics not very different: <br />these numbers seem to be a slight increase that are being referred from judge to <br />referee: 1% 18 years a(yo: now 1.5%...at that time, 94%resolved b-,- <br />referees ... now 9-12% referred to referee but most of these resolved by <br />stipulation before going to trial. Hear about 1% of cases that go to trial-This is <br />not the norm. Need to look at 70% that never go to trial, important statistics to <br />help people understand how efficient this is. <br />1) Speed up 70% of unopposed cases, get them done in 60 days <br />2) Tiv to make referees more active case managers than they have been in the <br />past: procedure rules now set out for the referees that they can rerefer these <br />to judge if knows this won't be settled: <br />3) If not obvious, than referee can hold a status conference... becomes obvious <br />that this needs to be referred to judge; but if parties agree that maybe it can <br />be worked out, and the negation process should be given a chance... leave it <br />in front of the referee so that the referee has one year to ti v to work it out , <br />exceptions that if at the end of the year, time period can be extended: but <br />give referee more power to try to resolve... then refer to judge, get on docket <br />so that it can move foiNvard. Thus, as is, parties don't care ...leave it on the <br />docket. But supreme ct is serious that the parties should not be allowed to <br />choose to let these just sit there. Wants to emphasize that there are drafts of <br />these rule changes... some under discussion for revisions, don't want to <br />mischaracterize ... time during committee deliberations wont be <br />done... Justice Hobbs understood that there is an urgency to move this along <br />and to get the report to the SCT and get it out for public comments... thus <br />draft rules are out, pay attention for supreme ct to get revision... meetings are <br />open: meeting dates are published: open public process, <br />Supreme Ct will notice out formal rule making and the process is to have <br />these in place and to be in place by July 1 2009. <br />Question: John Stencler: Always thought there should be more referees, true <br />in all districts? Should there be more water judges in some districts? <br />Mike: Don't know on either of these. Have developed the sense that this is a <br />complex question because of interplay between judicial budgeting process <br />and each district where there is a water court... in division 5, water referee is <br />'/2 time... so if you "fiddle with the water portion, fiddle with other... SO will <br />be looking at these issues, and if they need more support, will ask the <br />legislature for these resources. Hobbs said that we are charged with figuring <br />out how ought this happen. If additional resources are needed, the SCT is <br />committed to asking for this. <br />John: Seems like there will be more cases than there are now. <br />Mike: Possible but the SCT looked at 15 years not a spike: 2 spikes 1985 <br />after SB 5 cleared deck for adjudicating Denver Basin rights, big spike, 1997 <br />after decision of Turkev Canvon Ranch Case..If you want standing for <br />adjudication for exempt well..Need to adjudicate well. Some of surveys <br />during this process, perception is that maybe increase in complex questions, <br />changes to move from unappropriated kvater right to changes of adjudication <br />of aug rights.. Mike opines that consensus for more cases, more <br />complex... computer models and technical studies.