My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Reply Brief; Case No. 04SA44
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
3001-4000
>
Reply Brief; Case No. 04SA44
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:41:38 PM
Creation date
7/29/2009 12:57:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8230.2F
Description
Colorado Supreme Court Appeal
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
4
Date
10/15/2004
Author
Ken Salazar, Susan Schneider
Title
Reply Brief; Case No. 04SA44
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.
/
34
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
Appellants, the Colorado Water Conservation Board ("CWCB" or "the Board") and <br />the State and Division Engineers (collectively, "the State"), through the Attorney General for <br />the State of Colorado and the undersigned Assistant Attorney General, pursuant to C.A.R., <br />Rule 2, hereby move to shorten and expedite the time within which to schedule oral <br />argument in this case and request the Court to conduct an expedited review of this case. In <br />support of this motion, the State states as follows: <br />It is appropriate and necessary to expedite this case because the issues are of <br />considerable importance to the people of the State of Colorado. There are a number of <br />entities that have either applied for a Recreational In Channel Diversion, ("RICD"), have <br />built structures that may be used as the basis for an RICD application, or are in the process of <br />designing and constructing structures that may be used as the basis for an RICD application. <br />These entities and the CWCB need to know as soon as possible what the law is with regard <br />to RICDs. For example, the water court for Water Division No. 6 has set a trial to begin in <br />August 2005 regarding the application by the City of Steamboat Springs, and has stayed <br />discovery until January 2005. A ruling in the present matter will substantially affect that <br />litigation, as well as other pending cases. <br />2. The State had requested a thirty-day extension of time within which to file its <br />Opening Brief because the record is voluminous and the issue is of utmost importance to the <br />people of the State of Colorado. The Appellees had filed three separate motions for <br />extension of time, delaying the completion of briefing until October 15, 2004, the date the <br />State is filing this motion along with its Reply Brief. <br />2
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.