Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />t 2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />2 -i 10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />f 13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />t <br />25 <br />So what I am suggesting to you is that the <br />water court has, in its own words, determined that it will <br />probably find injury. That determination was made following <br />the conclusion of the case. Judge -Statler said it again this <br />morning, and we are all proceeding on the basis that he will <br />find injury -- probably find injury, I should say from the <br />storage of the water in the Pueblo Reservoir under the plan <br />which was submitted to the water court and under the plan which <br />actually was tried in court over the last seven days or so. <br />Nothing is final, of course, until the water <br />court enters its ruling and nothing is final until the applicant <br />has had the opportunity to provide or to propose terms and <br />conditions to offset the injury to downstream appropriators. <br />Once that is determined, if it is determined adversely to the <br />applicant, the case will almost certainly proceed to the SupremE <br />Court of Colorado for final resolution. <br />MR. COOLEY: Who were the principal litigants <br />in the Bessemer case? <br />MR. SCHROEDER: Well, on the one side, the <br />principal litigant obviously was the Bessemer Ditch Company, <br />which was the applicant. <br />On the other side, the principal litigants were <br />clients - the one client which I represent in that case, the <br />Fort Lyon Canal Company. Mr. Howland testified, as a matter <br />of fact, on behalf of the Amity Irrigating Company. <br />