My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Judgement and Decree for Cases 2872, 5016, 5017, 91CW252
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
2001-3000
>
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Judgement and Decree for Cases 2872, 5016, 5017, 91CW252
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:41:20 PM
Creation date
7/24/2009 12:43:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8230.51A7
Description
Exhibits
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
3/5/1996
Author
Thomas W. Ossola
Title
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Judgement and Decree for Cases 2872, 5016, 5017, 91CW252
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Court Documents
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
35
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Consolidated Civil Case <br />Nos. 2782, 5016 and 5017 ayid <br />Case No. 91CW252, WD 5 <br />reached eleva--ion 7482 feet, and of the release of the <br />substitution flows at the designated xate. <br />37.2 At an;? time prior to the expiration of the <br />original period of such retained jurisdiction or any extension <br />thereof which may be ordered by the Water Judge under Section <br />37-92-304(6), 15 C.R.S. (1990), any Opposer may invoke the <br />water Court's jurisdiction by filing'a verified petition with <br />the Clerk of r_he water Court with copies to the Co-Applicants. <br />The petition to invoke retained jurisdiction and to modify the <br />decree shall set rorth with particularity the factual basis <br />upon which the requested reconsideration is premised, together <br />with proposed decretal language to implement the petition. The <br />party Iodging the petition shall have the burden of going <br />forward to establish the prima Lacie facts alleged in the <br />petition. If the court finds those facts to be established, <br />the Co-Applicants snall thereupon have the burden of proof to <br />show: (a) that any modification sought by the Co-AppZicants <br />will avoid injury to other appropriators, or (b) that any <br />modification sought by Opposers is not required to avoid injury <br />to other appropriators, or (c) that any term or condition <br />proposed by Co-Applicants in response to the Opposers` petition <br />does avoid injury --o other appropriators. <br />37.3 The Court may, after consideration ot the petition <br />and responses r_hereto, together with the evidence presented, <br />allow the part:.es z3 propose furthe= terms and conditions which <br />33
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.