My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Order Granting Summary Judgement Motions in Part and Denying Summary Motions in Part
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
3001-4000
>
Order Granting Summary Judgement Motions in Part and Denying Summary Motions in Part
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/8/2010 9:03:26 AM
Creation date
5/18/2010 3:06:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
ARCA
State
CO
KS
Basin
Arkansas
Water Division
2
Date
7/23/2007
Author
Connie L. Peterson
Title
Order Granting Summary Judgement Motions in Part and Denying Summary Motions in Part
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.
/
19
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
quasi - judicial in character and in that capacity, the Comwissioners shall be treat and viewed as <br />the equivalent of judges. See Colo. Grotmd Water C©rraue n v. Eagle Peak Farms, 919 P.2d 212 <br />(Color, 1996), Yells v Del Norte School mist., 753 P.2d 770, 722 (Colo. App. 1987). <br />80. The Defendants have Pointed out that, because of this case, these Commissioners are not <br />Participating in board decisions of their malaage -tent districts. <br />81, There is no appearance of impropriety, at this time. Plaintiffs Have not identified bias. <br />At this time, the Commissioners' interest is a general public interest. It is similar to a Denver <br />Distdct Judge presiding over a trial concerning Denver Water rates and being asked to reouse <br />from the- case because the judge has an interest in cost of Deaver water. Bias, a conflict of <br />interest or some other meritorious reason for recusal could develop in the future. If, for example, <br />at some point, the wells owned by these Commissioners are directly identified as causing injury <br />to Plairttifl's' surface water rights, them an appearance of impropriety andlor a direct conflict of <br />ititemt maybe involved. <br />0. Plaintiffs are responsible for publication costs associated with the Fedtlon before the <br />commission. <br />82. Plaintiffs argue that C.R.S. § 37 -90 -116 does not require Plaintiffs to pay the publication <br />costs of their underlying petition filed before the Commmission They argue that this statutory <br />section does not authorize the Commission to collect costs for publishing petitions, especially <br />when those petitions are designed to force the Commission to take actions mandated by statute. <br />See Plainti fs' Reply Brief on the issue ofpublication costs (died March 7, 2007), p,5. <br />83. Section 37- 90116 sets forth the required fees for publication of requests for Commission <br />action. Plaintiffs argue that because a petition such as theirs is not specifically listed, they are- <br />not responsible for publication costs. <br />84. Section 37 -90 -116 is broad enough and inclusive enough to include Plaintiffs' underlying <br />petition. Plai>n.tis rend this section too narrowly. The intended purpose of this section is to <br />relieve the public of paying publication costs of nxattera brought before the Commission. <br />85. Plaintiffs' responsibility for payment of publication costs is consisteat. with the common <br />requirement in Colorado for payment of initial fees by plaintiffs, petitioners and other parties. <br />See C.R.S. 1332 -101, et. seg. <br />n See C.R.S. 37 -90 -107 for publication requimments. <br />11071 Is <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.