Laserfiche WebLink
efforts, Colorado Water Users and Officials have evaluated the time they may spend in discussing <br />a stipulated decree, compared it to the lengthy and expensive trial sure to occur if the United States <br />is forced to proceed with its original application, and have determined that they are willing to bear <br />the risk that the stipulated decree will later be overturned. The United States has apparently made <br />the same determination. The parties' own determination of the risks and rewards of proceeding <br />rather than staying this case are due more respect than Environmental Opposers' paternalistic <br />assessment. See Chilcott, 713 F. 2d at 1486 ( " unanimous and vigorous opposition" to stay by <br />individual investors demonstrated that their interests served as no justification for the stay). <br />At bottom, Environmental Opposers argue that they have a pressing need for a stay that <br />outweighs any prejudice to the other parties. However, the prejudice they argue for is suspect. <br />Environmental Opposers waited five months' to file a federal challenge to an agreement they claim <br />was illegal from its inception. They filed their complaint at the last possible moment. Further, their <br />complaint makes it clear that they are asking for relief that they are clearly not entitled to — federal <br />court control of reserved rights litigation. <br />C. Prior Colorado and Federal cases establish that the motion for stay should be denied. <br />Environmental Opposers state that "Colorado cases provide little guidance," Motion at 5, but <br />they persist in ignoring the one Colorado case directly on point.' In Sierra Club v. Block, Civil <br />' Regarding their NEPA claims, Environmental Opposers delayed for several years. If, as they <br />allege, NEPA review is required for litigation decisions, the initial application filed in 2001 was <br />invalid, as it was filed without any NEPA analysis. <br />'Environmental Opposers refusal to acknowledge Block and Yeutter is particularly puzzling because <br />two of them, Trout Unlimited and the Wilderness Society, filed aniicus briefs in the 10th Circuit. <br />See Yeutter, 911 F. 2d at 1407. Further, as set forth in Colorado Water Users and Officials' <br />17 <br />