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
Eagle County II was not the United States Supreme Court's only pronouncement on the <br />McCarran Amendment. In a seminal case that Environmental Opposers neglect to even <br />acknowledge, the Supreme Court approved adjudication of federal water rights in Colorado water <br />court even though there were parallel proceedings in federal district court, initiated before the <br />state court proceeding. In Colorado River, the United States filed suit in the United States District <br />Court for the District of Colorado, seeking a declaration of its reserved rights to water in certain <br />rivers and their tributaries in Division 7; several months later, one of the approximately 1000 <br />defendants filed an action in the state water court for division 7 and joined the United States <br />pursuant to the McCarran Amendment. Colorado River,424 U.S. at 805 -06. In view of the state <br />water court proceeding, the federal district court dismissed the federal action under the doctrine of <br />abstention, and the Supreme Court ultimately reviewed the dismissal on certiorari. Id. at 806. The <br />Court held that the federal district court properly dismissed the action based on principles of "wise <br />judicial administration" and the policy expressed in the McCarran Amendment. Id. at 817, 819 <br />(citation omitted). The Court expressly recognized Colorado's Water Right Determination and <br />Administration Act as an example of a comprehensive system for adjudication and management of <br />water rights under the McCarran Amendment. Id. at 819. <br />C. This Court Hasa Statutory and Policy Responsibility to Adjudicate and Quantify the <br />Federal Claims Before it Here. <br />The Colorado Supreme Court has emphasized the need for water court determination of all <br />claims in a river basin. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.