Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />WATER RIGHTS UNIT MATTERS <br /> <br /> <br />1. CWCB ISF Application on Gunnison River throue:h the Black Canyon (Case No. <br />03CW265). <br /> <br />This application has been stayed pending the resolution offederallitigation. <br /> <br />2. Application of City of Central (Case No. 92CW168) <br /> <br />At the last meeting, the Attorney General's Office informed the Board that the Supreme <br />CWCB had prevailed in a unaminous Supreme Court decision in this appeal. In its decision, the <br />Supreme Court held that that the CWCB's instre<1m flow rights are entitled to protection against <br />injury from changes in stream conditions caused by new plans for augmentation or augmentation <br />plans including exchange. The Supreme Court remanded the case with instructions for the Trial <br />Court to enter a final decree consistent with the Supreme Court's decision. <br /> <br />On remand, the Trial Court ordered the applicant to draft a new decree reflecting the <br />Supreme Court's holding. The applicant responded by refusing to draft a new decree, stating <br />that the decree it had previously submitted, and that had been the basis of the Supreme Court <br />appeal, was sufJident. The CWCB then submitted a reply to the applicant's response. We also <br />submitted our own version of the final decree reflecting the very clear direction provided by the <br />Supreme Court. <br /> <br />The Trial Court then entered an order to show cause, directing the appliC<1nt to show' <br />cause why the Triill Court should not enter the CWCB's proposed decree. We are awaiting the <br />applicant's response to that order. <br /> <br />3. Upper Eae:le Ree:ional Water Authority Case No. 03CW78 <br /> <br />A two-day trial was held before Judge Craven in Water Division 5 in Case No. 03CW78 <br />regarding a plan for augmentation for the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority. The primary <br />issue involved the Authority's reliance on a table of monthly depletion rates for each of six <br />metropolitan districts within the Authority. The eWCB argued that while the table may be a <br />reasonable reflection of what the Authority's depletions were once project to be at 100% build- <br />out, the Authority should be required to account for its actual depletions as development <br />proceeds. The same issue is in dispute regarding another plan for augmentation for the <br />Authority in Case No. 02CW403, which is scheduled to go to trial in May. A motion for the <br />determination of questions of law regarding the table of monthly depletion rates has been filed in <br />that case. A mling by the Water Court in one or both cases is expected soon, and may eliminate <br />the need to proceed to trial in Case No. 02CW403. After trial in Case No. 03CW78, the General <br />Manager of the Authority wrote a letter to the Division Engineer's office expressing dismay at <br />what he learned at trial regarding the Division Engineer's dissatisfaction with the Authority's <br /> <br />5 <br />