Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br />. <br /> <br />cites to the old hearing record be submitted; and (3) the Findings and Recommendations be . <br />issued on July 18,2005 (the date another RlCD hearing is being held). The State argued <br />against this request orally and will submit written argument by May 31, 2005. The State's <br />position is that the Supreme Court specifically stated that it remanded the case "to the water <br />court with instructions to remand to the CWCB for factual findings on whether the <br />application... comports with the five statutory factors." Id., at 603. Thus, the Water Court <br />was told to remand the case to the CWCB with instructions that the CWCB was to consider <br />five statutory factors, not two. Further, if the Water Court were to mandate procedures for <br />the CWCB to follow during its statutory hearing, the Water Court would be violating Article <br />III of the Colorado Constitution, requiring a separation of powers. <br /> <br />4. Hil!:h Plains Appeal. rel!:ardinl!: the anti-speculation doctrine and three applications <br />to Chanl!:e Fort Lvon Canal water ril!:hts to over 50 uses in 28 counties. (Case Nos. <br />02CW183. 03CW28 and 03CW68): <br /> <br />The CWCB and State and Division Engineers filed their Answer Brief in this case on <br />March 4,2005 asking the Colorado Supreme Court to uphold the Division 2 water court's <br />order that the three High Plains change applications are barred by the anti-speculation <br />doctrine. <br /> <br />The Answer Brief first explains that the anti-speculation doctrine is an essential part of <br />the doctrine of beneficial use that must be enforced across the board. If water users are able <br />to get around the rule simply by filing a change application, the anti-speculation doctrine will <br />fail. The brief then summarizes the undisputed evidence that the High Plains applications are <br />speculative: the applicants do not plan to use the water themselves, do not have a contract <br />with an end user, and do not have a plan for a changed use. They simply want to increase the <br />marketability of their water rights. Next, the brief explains that speculation is a threshold <br />issue that required dismissal of the applications prior to reaching the question of injury. <br />Finally, the brief addresses the applicants' policy arguments, explaining that maximum <br />utilization is served by upholding the rule that speculation is not a beneficial use. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The briefing is complete and Oral Argument has been set for June 14,2005 at 9 am <br />and at 10:30 am. <br /> <br />5. Moltz application. Chaffee County. 02CW73 <br /> <br />At the September Board meeting the Board approved a request to inundate the Board's <br />Trout Creek instream water right, with mitigation. Since that time Moltz has filed a new <br />application, and the trial scheduled for October, 2004 was vacated because the new <br />application is so closely related to the pending case. CWCB Staff reached an agreement in <br />principle with Moltz. But Moltz has apparently decided that he does not like the deal he <br />struck and has failed to provide any proposed decree or stipulation. At his request, his state <br />legislator has approached the State Engineer and the Attorney General claiming that 1) . <br />"futile call" should apply to his reservoir evaporation and 2) agreed-upon terms are being <br /> <br />6 <br />