BOARD00379

• Board Meeting Date: 9/24/2001
• Description: ISF Section - Case Resolution: Case No. 1-94CW290 Buffalo Park Development Co. et al
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

9-13-01; 10:26AMjTle:NKEN HILt..., LLP

;303 92.8 0853

# 3/ 14

Water Division 1, (collectively "Engineers"); Red Rocks country .
Club (Red Rocks"); Bear Mountain HO:\neowners Association ("Bear
Mountain HOA"); GenElsee Water and Sariitation District (Genesee);
Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Comp~ny; Henry Kerschbaum, Larry
plume, Ben Napheys, III, Charles ~aas, Vista Exline and Jeremiah
P. Lee, III, (collElctively "pro ~ Opposers"); (all collectively
referred to herein as "Opposers" j, by and through their
underSigned counsel or appearin~ pro se, hereby agree and
stipulate as follows:

1. Applicants have before thJ Court an Application for
Condi tional Underground Water Rights; Conditional Surface Water
Right, Changes of Water Rights, Approval of Plan for Augmentation
Including Exchanges and Adjudication of Conditional Appropriative
Rights of Substitution and ExchangE!.

2. A trial to the Court wc\s held on July 19 through 23,
1999, and January 24, 25, 26 and ~8, ,2000. At the conclusion of
the presentation of Applicants' ca~e, the Opposers moved to
dismiss the Application pursuant to C!R.C.P. 41(b) (1) .

3. On January 31, 2000, the dourt entered a Minute Order
conditionally denying Opposers' Motion to Dismiss but vacating the
balance of Trial. In an Order, dated May 23, 2000, denying
Applicants' Motion to Reconsid~r, the Court clarified the
rationale for the January 31, 2000, Order. The Court ruled that
based upon the evidence presented byithe Applicants, Buffalo Park .
had failed to demonstrate that sufficient water could be exchanged
upstream to allow proposed wells to operate if the exchange
proposed by the Applicants on Turkey!creek and North Turkey Creek
was junior to the instream flow a~pr~priation claimed by the CWCB
in Case No. 94CW250. '

4. Subsequent to the entry of the Court's Orders, the
parties have investigated the abiliity of MMRC and others to
exchange water from the confluenCE! o~ Turkey Creek and Bear Creek
to upstream points on Turkey Creek ~nd Bear Creek, assuming that
the CWCB instream flow appropria~ions pending in Case Nos.
94CW250, 94CW251, 94CW256, 94CW259 I and 94CW260 are decreed as
requested. As a result of more comprehensive and sophisticated
investigations, the parties have concluded that even with the
requirement that the CWCB instream f~ow rights be fully satisfied,
exchange capacity on Turkey Creek and Bear Creek is available for
MMRC and Buffalo Park as described h~rein.

5. The parties desire to *esolve by Stipulation, any
differences they may have with the A~plication herein, as well as
all other pending plan for augmentation applications which utilize
MMRC water as the augmentation anQ r$placement source.

6. The parties also desire that the Court lift the stay of
proceedings which has been in place in this matter and other
pending plan for augmentation cases' which utilize MMRC water as a
the augmentation and replacement source. ...,

2