Laserfiche WebLink
<br />and the Vermejo Water Conservancy District. That last plaintiff is a <br />very marginal conservancy district. It's so marginal, in fact, that a <br />bill has been introduced in the Congress to. forego the payment of all <br />the remaining capital investment because they can't pay it and they're <br />in arrears on their O&M payments. Subsequent to. the filing of that <br />case against us, we filed a motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs have <br />come back with a thirty-three page answer to eur motien to dismiss, I <br />and the judge sent it back with the instruction to cendense it to ten <br />pages. The plaintiffs requested an additional time for the cendensa- <br />tien. That's where we are in the court at the present time. <br /> <br />The pesitien, and our earlier request which we centinue to leave <br />befere you, is that the propesed application ef five second'feet on ' <br />Ricardo. Creek be postpened indefinitely until there's a reselution of <br />this matter between the state and the parties presently in the case. <br />There's no question in my mind as to the capabilities of theatterneys <br />representing three ef the major corperations of the United States, and <br />I think we're very well represented.a1so. I think it would net be wise <br />to. have this app1icatien en the books which can be injected into our <br />lawsuit and muddy up the waters with a matter which is net basically <br />germane to the problems between.the parties at interest. And so. that's <br />the b~sis for eur request for postponement of any filing on Ricardo. <br />Creek. <br /> <br />We are prepared to stipulate with the board that we will make no. <br />diversions frem Ricardo Creek without advising the board of: that inten- <br />tien and giving you the eppertunity to make your filing or take what- <br />ever steps yeu wish to. make. <br /> <br />MR. KROEGER: Thank you, Ralph. Are there any comments or any questiens <br />you would like to. ask in regard to that? <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: I fail to see how the decree that we requested has. any <br />bearing whatsoever upen the litigatien in which CFI is involved. What <br />we are asking is completely separate and apart and has nothing to de <br />with the current centreversy. If we fail to. get on with eur jeb <br />because litigation is taking place.on a certain stream in the state, <br />the job will never get done. We have never-ending litigatien of water <br />rights on virtually every stream ef the state. CFI is a large and <br />powerful cerporatien, but as far as this staff and this board is cen~ <br />cerned, we regard it no differently than any ether entity ef the state <br />of Colorado. <br /> <br />MR. ADKINS: I think Larry and I are pretty much in disagreement at <br />that point because, as I stated earlier, I would expect the legal I <br />ceunsel fer the plaintiffs invelved in this case to. raise every point <br />that they can find. And since this is an interstate stream, my vosition <br />is still that we do not need this injected at this time, which I m <br />quite certain will be used to. whatever advantage it can be by the <br />plaintiffs en the New Mexico side ef the state line. <br /> <br />As further information in regard to. this particular matter, I had a <br />request from the aquatic biologist of the Game and Fish on June llo <br /> <br />-50- <br />