My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Response of CO Water Users and Officials to Motion to Stay Proceedings
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
3001-4000
>
Response of CO Water Users and Officials to Motion to Stay Proceedings
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/8/2010 9:03:30 AM
Creation date
5/21/2010 12:58:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Gunnison River
State
CO
Basin
Gunnison
Water Division
4
Date
9/22/2003
Author
Ken Salazar, Carol D. Angel, Bratton & McClow LLC, Moses, Wittemyer, Harrison and Woodruff P.C., Burns, Figs & Will, P.C.
Title
Response of CO Water Users and Officials to Motion to Stay Proceedings
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Court Documents
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
B. The United States Supreme Court Has Approved the Adjudication of Federal <br />Reserved Water Rights by Colorado Water Courts. <br />Initially, the United States disputed the "clear federal policy" of the McCarran Amendment. <br />in the proceedings that ultimately culminated in this case? However, both the Colorado Supreme <br />Court and the United States Supreme Court rejected the United States' position, emphasizing that <br />deference must be accorded to state court water proceedings. The Colorado Supreme Court <br />unanimously held that a Colorado district court had "plenary power" to decree the relative rights of <br />the United States and to bring in necessary parties "in order to make such a decree fully valid, <br />effective and enforceable." Eagle County I, 458 P.2d at 767. The United States Supreme Court <br />affirmed, describing the McCarran Amendment as an all- inclusive statute concerning the <br />adjudication of rights to the use of water of a river system which has no exceptions. United States <br />v. District Courtfor Eagle County, 401 U.S. 520 (197 1) ( "Eagle County If'); accord, United States <br />v. District Court for Water Division No. 5, 401 U.S. 527 (1971) ( "Water Division 5 "); see also <br />United States v. City and County of Denver, By and Through Bd. of Water Com'rs, 656 P.2d 1, 9 <br />(Colo. 1982) (Through the McCarran Amendment, "Congress recognized that the western states <br />have a legitimate interest in and responsibility for the allocation of water resources within their <br />borders, including the determination and adjudication of the water rights claimed by the United <br />States "). <br />s Colorado Water Users and Officials provided a detailed history of the consolidated cases that <br />resulted in the conditional decree at issue here as an appendix to their Reply in support of the Motion <br />to Amend, filed August 5, 2003. See also United States v. City and County of Denver, 656 P.2d 1, <br />9 -12 (Colo. 1982), for a description of the case history up to that point. <br />7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.