Laserfiche WebLink
decree consistent with the Proposed Amended Application, the doctrine of res judicata would <br />likely preclude the Court in the future from considering an expansion of the water right, <br />regardless of whether the federal court finds the existing Proposed Amended Application in <br />violation of federal law. <br />It may even be the case that if the stay is denied and the Proposed Amended Application <br />is allowed, the United States would not be permitted to re- amend, before a decree is entered, to <br />seek a quantity larger than 300 cfs without a loss of priority date. In United States v. Bell, 724 <br />P.2d 631 (Colo. 1986), the United States sought to expand a federal reserved rights claim after <br />the original application was filed, but before a decree had been entered. The United States <br />requested that the amendment relate back to the original filing date and urged that the amended <br />filing should benefit from the doctrine of antedation, such that the priority date of the amended <br />claim would be the date of the land reservation. The Colorado Supreme Court upheld the trial <br />court's decision that the amendment should not relate back to the original filing date or benefit <br />from the doctrine of antedation. Id. at 639 -642. Instead, the amended claim would be assigned a <br />new, more junior priority. Though the facts of Bell are distinguishable from the instant case, it is <br />at least a possibility that Bell could prohibit the United States from expanding its claim if this <br />Court had already accepted the Proposed Amended Application. <br />Whether by operation of the doctrine of res judicata or the opinion in the U.S. v. Bell <br />case, it is highly possible that continuing on the path suggested by the Applicant could preclude <br />the United States from ever asserting a more expansive claim than is presented in the Proposed <br />Amended Application. As a result, proceeding with the instant case before the federal issues are <br />resolved could result in prejudice to the Environmental Plaintiffs' efforts to secure the relief <br />requested in the Complaint. <br />10 <br />