Response of CO Water Users and Officials to Motion to Stay Proceedings

Home Browse Search

quantification in federal district court, that court will have to interpret the Colorado Water Court decree that is the basis of this application. Such a proceeding would be completely contrary to that decree. In the 1978 decree, the water court ruled that: Quantification would be accomplished through applications by the United States in the appropriate water courts for decrees making the conditional decrees absolute for specific amounts of water, and at that time the questions as to whether each specific use claimed is within the purposes of the reservation, as well as the priority date for each water right (based on the reservation date of the land on which the specific stream segment is located) would be determined by the water court in which the application is filed. Findings, Conclusions and Order of the Court With Respect to the Partial Master - Referee's Report Covering All of the Claims of the United States of America and the Proposed Interlocutory Decree, filed March 6, 1978, at 75 -76 (emphasis added). The Colorado Supreme Court also regarded its opinion on appeal as "the foundation for a system of water rights adjudications" and expected final proceedings that would "eliminate much of the uncertainty surrounding Colorado's appropriation system." U.S. v. Denver, 656 P.2d at 36. A stay to allow the federal district court to determine the final shape of the Black Canyon reserved right after thirty years of water court proceedings is simply w inconsistent with the law of this case. III. ENVIRONMENTAL OPPOSERS HAVE NOT SATISFIED THE REQUIREMENTS FOR GRANTING A STAY. A. The Movant for a Stay Must Show that Its Need for the Stay is Not Outweighed by the Hardship to Other Parties. A court may stay a proceeding as an incident to the court's inherent power to control its docket, reduce effort for the court and the litigants, ensure justice and promote the efficient and 10