My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Judgement and Decree for Cases 2872, 5016, 5017, 88CW382
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
2001-3000
>
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Judgement and Decree for Cases 2872, 5016, 5017, 88CW382
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:41:21 PM
Creation date
7/24/2009 12:47:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8230.51A7
Description
Exhibits
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
11/10/1992
Author
Edward W. Nottingham
Title
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Judgement and Decree for Cases 2872, 5016, 5017, 88CW382
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.
/
14
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
Stipulation for Decree have agreed not to oppose the entry of <br />this Decree or have agreed to withdraw their Statements of - <br />Opposition by means of various stipulations or other pleadings. <br />The Court having reviewed the various pleadings and havinq <br />reviewed and approved all of the various stipulations in this <br />case, FINDS as follows: <br />l. The provisions proposed in the Stipulation for Decree <br />and proposed decree to govern the administration of the water <br />rights owned by the United States and used for the operation of <br />the Colorado-Big Thompson Project which are evidenced by <br />paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Final Decree entered in these <br />Consolidated Cases on October 12, 1955 are consistent with that <br />Decree and with the operation of the Colorado-Big Thompson <br />Project in accordance with the intent of Senate Document No. 80, <br />75th Cong. lst Sess., and in conformity with applicable federal <br />and Colorado law. <br />2. Denver does not here seek to adjudicate an <br />appropriative right of exchange between Williams Fork Reservoir <br />and the Harold D. Roberts Tunnel or Dillon'Reservoir. Instead, <br />Denver claims ta make such exchanges by the exercise of the right <br />decreed to its Williams Fork Reservoir after complying with the <br />requirements of paragraph 4(c) in the 1955 Stipulation and <br />paragraphs 2 and 5 of the 1964 Decree in the Consolidated Cases. <br />3
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.