Opposition to Motion to Intervene

• File Number: 07CW137
• Description: Concerning the Application for Water Rights of the City of Golden
• State: CO
• Water Division: 1
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Court Documents

District Court, Water Division No. 1, State of Colorado
901 9a' Avenue, Room 418
Greeley, Colorado 80631
CONCERNING THE APPLICATION FOR WATER
RIGHTS OF THE CITY OF GOLDEN
IN JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO
COURT USE ONLY
Porzak Browning & Bushong LLP
Case Number: 07CW137
Glenn E. Porzak (#2793)
Steven J. Bushong (#21782)
Katherine A.D. Ryan ( #38873)
929 Pearl Street, Suite 300
Water Division I
Boulder, CO 80302
Telephone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
OPPOSITION TO MOTION, TO INTERVENE
The Applicant, the City of Golden ( "Golden "), by and through its undersigned counsel,
does hereby submit its opposition and response to the Motion to Intervene ( "Motion") filed by
the Colorado Water Conservation Board ( "CWCB "):
1. The Application to Make Conditional Rights Absolute and for a Finding of
Reasonable Diligence was filed on June 28, 2007, and published in the July 2007 resume. The
deadline for Statements of Opposition was August 31, 2007, over six months ago. C.R.S. § 37-
92-302(c). The CWCB did not file a Statement of Opposition.
2. C.R.S. § 37- 92- 304(3) mandates that a motion to intervene can be granted only if
all three of the following requirements are met: (1) the motion is filed "no less than 30 days
before any pretrial conference or due date for trial data certificates," (2) the movant makes "a
showing of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect," and (3) intervention "will not
unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties." See Rule 7 of
Local Rules for Water Courts (requiring motions to intervene to conform to § 37- 92- 304(3)). As
detailed below, the CWCB's Motion fails to satisfy both the second and third requirements.
3. Although there is no case law interpreting "mistake, inadvertence, surprise or
excusable neglect" in the context of C.R.S. § 37- 92- 304(3), the identical phrase is found in
C.R.C.P. 60(b)(1). Cases interpreting the phrase under Rule 60(b)(1) are clear that the proponent
of the motion must show something other than mere negligence or common carelessness, and
21964