Motion for Continuance of Trial and Stay of Discovery Deadlines

Home Browse Search

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v Mayer, 833 P.2d 60, 62 (Colo. App. 1992); judicial efficiency, see In Re- Marriage ofMowrer, 817 P.2d 61, 614 (Colo. App. 1991) (holding that a Colorado court may decline to address an issue that could easily and efficiently be addressed by an out -of -state court); and whether a failure to grant a stay may result in unnecessary expense, see Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 833 P.2d at 62. In addition, federal courts in deciding whether a stay is appropriate consider the likely duration of the stay. See Ortegal Trujillo v. Conover & Co. Communications, Inc., 221 F.3d 1262, 1264 (11"' Cir. 2000) ( "[i]n considering whether a stay is 'immoderate,' we examine both the scope of the stay (including its potential duration) and the reasons cited by the district court for the stay "). B. A Continuance and Stay will Enable the Colorado Supreme Court to Resolve the Critical Legal Questions Raised by Case Nos. OOCW259 and OOCW282. Section 37 -92- 102(3), C.R.S., provides as follows: [T]he Colorado water conservation board is hereby vested with the exclusive authority ... to appropriate ... such waters of natural streams and lakes as the board determines may be required for minimum stream flows or for natural surface water levels or volumes for natural lakes to preserve the natural environment to a reasonable degree. In the adjudication of water rights pursuant to this article and other applicable law, no other person or entity shall be granted a decree adjudicating a right to water or interests in water for instream flows in a stream channel between specific points ... for any purposes whatsoever. (Emphasis added.) This provision appears to clearly prohibit any person or entity other than the CWCB from obtaining a right to a specific amount of flow between points in a stream channel. In City of Fort Collins, however, the Colorado Supreme Court was called upon to interpret this provision. City of Fort Collins involved an application by the City of Fort Collins, Colorado for water rights along the Poudre River Recreation Corridor. Included in this application was a request for a conditional water right for a dam (the "Power Dam ") including in- channel boat chute and fish ladder. The water court denied Fort Collins' request as an instream appropriation barred pursuant to C.R.S. § 37 -92- 102(3). The Supreme Court reversed the water court's holding. The Court found that, although the boat chute and fish ladder do not divert water from the channel, these structures do concentrate and control the flow of water. The Court held that the Power Dam therefore is a'diversion pursuant to C.R.S. § 37 -92- 103(7), and concluded that Fort's Collins application was not for an instream appropriation barred under § 37 -92- 102(3). The Supreme Court's holding in City of Fort Collins was cited by the water court in the Golden ruling as precedent for recognizing Golden's instream rock and boulder