Laserfiche WebLink
Action No. 84 -K -2 (opinion on summary judgment grounds at 622 F. Supp. 842 (D. Colo. 1985), <br />vacated, Sierra Club v. Yeutter, 911 F.2d 1405 (10th Cir. 1990)), the Sierra Club attempted to delay <br />the entry of a stipulated partial final judgment in a post -U.S. v. Denver proceeding in Division 5 <br />Water Court, because it might preclude its efforts to force the United States to apply for reserved <br />rights for wilderness areas. The Sierra Club sought a temporary restraining order from the U.S. <br />District Court to restrain the United States from entering into the stipulation. Sierra Club's Motion <br />for a Temporary Restraining Order and For Waiver of Security Bond, dated August 16, 1985, Sierra <br />Club v. Block, Civil Action No. 84 -K -2, In The United States District Court for the District of <br />Colorado. Like Environmental Opposers here, Sierra Club argued that the stipulation in state court <br />would deny it an effective remedy in federal court. Id., paragraph 4. After a hearing, the District <br />Court dissolved the TRO.' Sierra Club then attempted to convince the Division 5 Water Court not <br />to enter the stipulated partial final judgment. Sierra Club's Response in Opposition to Stipulation <br />Among Parties to Partial Final Judgment, dated September 10, 1985, In the Matter of the <br />Application for Water Rights of the United States of America, In The District Court In And For <br />Water Division No. 4,W -425 through W -43 8; In The District Court In And For Water Division No. <br />supplemental Reply in support of the United States' Motion to Amend, Environmental Opposers do <br />not have a legal right to control decisions of the United States' as to federal reserved water rights <br />litigation. See Colorado Water Users and Officials' Reply to Environmental Opposers' Response <br />to United States' Motion to Amend, section VI.E., at 27 -30. Therefore, on the basis of the legal <br />authority cited in that Reply, Colorado Water Users and Officials believe that the Environmental <br />Opposers' federal complaint is without merit. Colorado Water Users and Officials expressly reserve <br />and do not waive their objections to Environmental Opposers' federal complaint on its merits. <br />s Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a copy of the relevant portion of the District Court's docket, <br />showing the hearing on the TRO and reflecting that the TRO was denied. As far as we have been <br />able to determine, the District Court ruled from the bench and did not issue a written order. <br />18 <br />