Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy Distric Minutes March 17 2005

Home Browse Search

SECWCD March 17, 2005 6 RECORD OF PROCEEDING Bent Conservation District. The brief in the High Plains cases argued that Judge Maes properly dismissed those cases because the anti - speculation doctrine should apply to changes of water rights, and High Plains' failure to satisfy anti- speculation requirements was undisputed. Additional Answer Briefs were filed by the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District; the Board of Water Works of Pueblo, Colorado Springs Utilities, the Colorado Canal Companies; the State and Division Engineers, and CWCB. An amicus brief, which also supported Southeastern's position, was filed by the Cache La Poudre Water Users Association, Thompson Water Users Association, and Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Mr. Leonhardt said that others who had indicated amicus support, including the Colorado River District, were unable to prepare amicus briefs for filing by the March 3 deadline. Mr. Leonhardt said the Supreme Court granted the Motion to Consolidate the two High Plains cases and denied High Plains' renewed Motion to Consolidate all three cases. Thus, legal counsel filed one Answer Brief in the consolidated High Plains cases and a separate Answer Brief in the ISG case. The brief in the ISG case adopted the anti - speculation arguments from the High Plains cases by reference, and argued that while Southeastern had not requested dismissal of the ISG case, the Water Court properly dismissed the case based on facts in the court record. High Plains and ISG's reply briefs are due on or about March 17. However, they have requested consent to additional time, to April 19, in which to file those briefs. Once the reply briefs have been filed, the Court will set the cases for oral argument. Mr. Leonhardt reported in the Chaffee County RICD case, several parties have filed statements of opposition. The Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB), Department of Natural Resources, Divisions of Wildlife and Parks, and State and Division Engineers all joined in a single statement of opposition, represented by Assistant Attorney General Susan Schneider. Because the application is for recreational in- channel diversion (RICD) rights, the CWCB will need to make certain findings under the RICD statute. The District's legal counsel requested that the CWCB hold a hearing on the application; the Upper Arkansas District, Board of Water Works of Pueblo, Aurora, and Salida joined in the request for a hearing. At its meeting on March 23, the CWCB is to consider appointing a hearing coordinator and providing guidance on scheduling the hearing. Legal counsel has explored the possibility of staying the CWCB proceedings for a few months, while the parties focus their efforts on settlement negotiations. On March 16, Chaffee County's attorneys requested a stay, suggesting a 6 -month extension of the deadline for CWCB findings, so that the CWCB hearing to be held sometime this fall. Legal counsel indicated that the District had no objection to this request. If no stay is granted, the CWCB may set a hearing on the Chaffee County RICD alongside its next meeting, which is currently scheduled in Canon City on May 24 -25. Mr. Leonhardt said legal counsel would talk further with the Board during the Executive Session about this matter, in particular to discuss strategies for the April 4 negotiation meeting. Mr. Leonhardt reported in Southeastern's Boustead Tunnel Enlargement cases, Division 5 Water Referee Leoniak had signed the stipulated consent decree as a ruling in the diligence case (No.