My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Motion to Stay Proceedings and Order Granting Motion District 6
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
3001-4000
>
Motion to Stay Proceedings and Order Granting Motion District 6
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:41:43 PM
Creation date
7/30/2009 10:51:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8230.21B2
Description
Disovery
State
CO
Basin
Yampa/White
Water Division
6
Date
6/15/2004
Author
Ken Salazar, Susan J. Schneider
Title
Motion to Stay Proceedings and Order Granting Motion District 6
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.
/
5
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
<br />would not prevent the Applicant from using its whitewater course, which is already <br />being used. <br />9. Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 120 § 1-15, counsel for the State hereby certifies that she has <br />conferred with counsel for the Applicant regarding the continuance sought by this <br />motion. Although discussions are ongoing, the Applicant has not presently agreed to <br />such continuance. The Upper Yampa River Water Conservancy District, the Town <br />of Oak Creek, the Town of Yampa, Morrison Creek Metropolitan District, R& S <br />Ranch, VGS Enterprises, Wharton Development Group, Routt County <br />Commissioners do not object to this Motion. Accordingly, the State is filing this <br />motion in order to ensure that costs of litigation are kept to a minimum until the <br />Supreme Court resolves certain disputed issues. <br />WHEREFORE, the State hereby respectfully requests that the Court stay the <br />proceedings in this matter pending the Supreme Court ruling in Case 04SA44, which <br />wilJ provide the parties and this Court guidance on: (1) the constitutionality of SB <br />216; (2) the extent to which SB 216 limits RICDs; and (3) whether the CWCB was <br />acting outside of its authority in making certain determinations or considering certain <br />evidence. Further, a stay would allow the CWCB and other parties to pursue <br />meaningful settlement. Thus, allowing the Supreme Court to resolve the primary legal <br />issues in this case would promote judicial economy and conserve the parties' and State <br />resources. <br />A draft order is attached, for the Court's convenience. <br />Submitted this day of June, 2004. <br />KEN SALAZAR <br />Attarney General <br />SUSAN J. S EIDER, # 19961 <br />Assistant Attorney General <br />Natural Resources and Environment Section <br />vbAttorneys for CWCB
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.