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

Home Browse Search

and the Black Canyon Act and to serve the purposes for with [sic] the Black Canyon was reserved ... "; and (2) "[h]old unlawful and set aside [the United States] Proposed Amended Application in water court as in violation of federal law ...." Federal Complaint, Prayer for Relief ¶¶ F and G (emphasis added). These two requests for relief demonstrate precisely why this Court must not grant a stay. A stay here would improperly shift determination of the pending Motion to Amend and the quantification of the Black Canyon reserved right from this Court to federal district court, to the inescapable prejudice of the hundreds of objectors in this Court. Apparently the Environmental Opposers are concerned about how this Court will decide the Motion to Amend, and seek to have the federal district court substituted as the tribunal to rule on the merits of that motion. Further, it is manifest from Environmental Opposers' federal complaint that, in order to decide its merits, the federal district court would necessarily have to determine the "quantities" and "frequencies" of water necessary to fulfill the purposes for which the Black Canyon was reserved. Environmental Opposers' request for a stay is in effect an attempt to usurp this Court's well- settled jurisdiction over water rights, including federal reserved water rights, and engage in forum shopping. This tactic is contrary to the intent of Congress, as expressed in the McCarran Amendment, 43 U.S.C. § 666, and to the directions of the United States and Colorado Supreme Courts. Further, under the standards for determining a stay, the Environmental Opposers have failed to carry their burden of showing that the stay will not prejudice other parties. To the contrary, the delay of proceedings in this Court and the transfer of the quantification decision to federal court will unjustifiably prejudice the numerous other objectors to this case. A stay here would not promote 3