Laserfiche WebLink
14 <br />1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />wasn't enacted yet; is that correct? <br />A Well, it was enacted while the City of Golden case <br />was being litigated. <br />Q Okay. <br />A But the applicability of the statute to Golden and <br />the Upper Eagle case and the Town of Breckenridge cases, the <br />statute had an effective date that would not have made it <br />apply to these three cases. <br />Q Okay. And, with respect to the Upper Eagle River <br />Water and Sanitation District, was that essentially an RICD <br />case prior to the implementation of Senate Bill 216? <br />A Yes, it was considered without the benefit of Senate <br />Bill 216. <br />Q All right. And what did you testify to in that <br />respect in that case? <br />A In the which case? <br />Q Upper Eagle River case. <br />A Yes. I testified in that case about the reasons why <br />the board had filed a statement of opposition in the matter. <br />I testified about the board's interpretation of the applicable <br />language as it related to the application that was before the <br />water court. <br />Q Okay. And the Town of Breckenridge? <br />A I provided similar testimony in the Town of <br />Breckenridge case.