Motion for Continuance of Trial and Stay of Discovery Deadlines

Home Browse Search

features and the outer banks of Golden's whitewater course as controlling structures sufficient to justify an appropriation of up to 1000 cfs. The water court held: [T]he Court finds that the structures in the Course control, concentrate, and direct the flow of water through the Course in a manner that constitutes a diversion under C.R.S. § 37- 92- 103(7). City of Thornton v. City of Fort Collins, 830 P.2d 915, 930 (Colo. 1992). The water court further held that, because the rock and boulder features and the outer banks of Golden's whitewater course were diversion structures, Golden's appropriation was not barred under C.R.S. § 37 -92- 102(3). In its appeal of that decision in Case No. 01 SA252, the CWCB is arguing that the water court erred in so interpreting City of Fort Collins. The CWCB maintains that the Supreme Court's ruling in City of Fort Collins recognizes only in- channel recreational water rights secured by traditional diversion structures. The CWCB maintains that City of Fort Collins does not support recognition of rock and boulder features or the outer banks of a channel as diversion structures sufficient to justify an appropriation of all water within a channel. The CWCB contends that such an interpretation of C.R.S. § 37- 92- 103(7) and - 102(3) would allow entities to appropriate what are effectively riparian instream flow rights limited in amount only by the maximum flow of the stream itself. Whether or not the Supreme Court ultimately agrees with the CWCB's arguments in its appeal of the City of Golden application, these arguments undeniably raise significant legal questions regarding the proper application of C.R.S. § 37 -92- 103(7) and - 102(3). Moreover, these arguments address the very legal issue raised, inter alia, by the Objectors in opposing the applications in these cases. The Objectors maintain that recognition of the water rights requested by the Applicants is not authorized pursuant to C.R.S. § 37- 92- 103(7) and - 102(3), as the Supreme Court interpreted those statutes in City of Fort Collins. Accordingly, it is appropriate to allow the Supreme Court to address this legal issue prior to proceeding to trial. C. Granting a Continuance and Stay Will Promote Judicial Economy By providing for pre -trial resolution of the legal issue that is critical to the applications, a continuance of trial and stay of discovery in these matters promotes judicial efficiency. As was discussed above, the central legal issue before this Court- -the proper interpretation of C.R.S. § 37 -92- 103(7) and - 102(3) and City of Fort Collins - -is the very question now on appeal to the Supreme Court in Case No. 01 SA252. Thus, if this Court were to allow the Supreme Court to resolve this issue prior to trial, this Court would not be forced to expend its resources resolving this issue. This court would not be required to