Laserfiche WebLink
when a substantiai number of persons are reasonabiy anticipated <br />to use the course, in order to prevent waste. <br />18. Very shortly before trial Applicant and Opposer Colorado Water <br />Conservation Board entered into a stipulation, filed September 4, 2003 <br />which in relevant part provides that no call shall be placed or administered <br />during any time that a valid cafl is being administered or could be <br />administered on behalf of the water rights for the Gunnison Tunnel or the <br />Redlands Power Canal and that Applicant will operate the water right with <br />due consideration for its mandate as a water conservancy district. <br />19. The "{aw of the river" was testified to primarily by Mr. Lochhead and Mr. <br />Seaholm. They did not materially disagree as to the law of the river. <br />Briefly summarized, with no intent of making this ruling into a lengthy <br />discussion on law and compacts affecting the Colorado River, the water in <br />the Colorado River and its tributaries is impacted by, among others, the <br />following significant laws, treaties, cases or policies: The 1922 Colorado <br />River Compact, the 1944 Treaty with Mexico, the 1948 Upper Colorado <br />Compact and various Acts of Congress including the Storage and River <br />Basin Act of 1968. These witnesses together with Mr. Slattery testified <br />with respect to the Gunnison River. There is minimal controversy between <br />the witnesses with respect to the probative facts concerning the Gunnison <br />River. Those would include and are perhaps most effectively illustrated by <br />Applicant's exhibit 4. Those are as follows: <br />8