Laserfiche WebLink
Because the judgment and decree of the Water Court is final and has resolved all <br />issues pending Uefore the Water Court, there was no need for a C.R.C.P. 54 (b) certification. <br />D. Whether thejudgment was made final in accordance with C.R.C.P. 54(b). <br />The judgment was made final in accordance with C.R.C.P. 54(b). <br />E. Date the Judgment and Decree was entered and the date of mailing to counsel. <br />The judgment and decree was entered and mailed to counsel on December 26, 2003. <br />F. Whether there were any extensions granted to file any motions for post-trial <br />relief. <br />No post trial motions were filed, and no extensions to do so were requested. <br />G. The date any motion for post-trial relief was filed. <br />Not applicable. <br />H. The date anv motion for post-nial relief was denied or deemed denied. <br />Not applicable. <br />1. Whether there were any extensions Qranted to file anv notice of appeal. <br />No extension to file the Notice of Appeal was requested. <br />II. ADVISORY LISTING OF ISSUES TO BE RAISED ON APPEAL. <br />A. Whether the water court erred in holding that the terms "minimum stream <br />flow" for "a reasonable recreation experience" are not to be given separate and <br />distinct meaning from pre-SB 216 statutory terms, such as "reasonableness," <br />"waste" and "speculation." <br />B. Whether the water court erred in holding that there is a constitutional right to <br />appropriate and determine "precisely the size and scope" of appropriations of <br />water for instream recreational uses.