Laserfiche WebLink
5,W -467 and W -469; In The District Court In And For Water Division No. 6,W -86. The Water <br />Court was not convinced, and entered judgment. Order Entering Partial Final Judgment, Approving <br />a Stipulation Among Parties, and Directing Further Proceedings, entered June 30, 1986, In the <br />Matter of the Application for Water Rights of the United States of America, In The District Court <br />In And For Water Division No. 4,W -425 through W -438; In The District Court In And For Water <br />Division No. 5,W -467 and W -469; In The District Court In And For Water Division No. 6,W -86. <br />Further, other Colorado precedent establishes that Environmental Opposers are not without <br />recourse. As noted above, the United State Supreme Court has made it clear that adjudication of <br />federal reserved rights in state water courts is the preferred option. It has also made it clear, <br />however, that it is the ultimate arbiter of the existence and amount of reserved rights. In Eagle <br />Countyll, after affirming the jurisdiction of Colorado water courts, the Court also stated with respect <br />to any "problems going to the merits," that "[a]ll such questions, including the volume and scope <br />of particular reserved rights, are federal questions which, if preserved, can be reviewed here after <br />final judgment by the Colorado court." 401 U.S. at 526. See also White Mountain Apache Tribe <br />v. Hodel, 784 F.2d 921, 924 (9th Cir. 1986) (Tribe alleging mismanagement by United States of its <br />reserved water rights claims should intervene in state water court adjudication: "Should the Tribe <br />fail to convince that court of the correctness of its position, the Tribe will, in due course, have its <br />opportunity to present its contentions to higher state courts and to the United States Supreme Court. <br />That route, rather than one of parallel or collateral proceedings in federal district court, is the proper <br />path for the Tribe to follow in asserting the water rights claims that lie at the heart of this case." <br />(citation omitted). <br />WE <br />