BOARD02033

• Board Meeting Date: 5/8/1963
• Description: Minutes
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

I

I

MR. STAPLETON:

MR. ROSS:

MR. STAPLETON:

tion because of pending litigation and the
pending litigation has not been settled."

"Duane
tbat would
this time?

Barnard isn't bere: is ~here anyone
like to speak to this resolution at
Mr. Ross."

"Just as a matter of clarification in the
Acting Director's report, there are actually
two different cases involved in this matter.
The first one has to do with the finding by the
trial Court of Grand County of diligence con-
cerning the conditional decree for the ute
Park Reservoir. The District Court in Grand
County did, at the last adjudication date, find
that diligence had been prosecuted in the devel-
opment of that project. That case is now pend-
ing in the Supreme Court to review the decision
of the District Court on that particular question.

The question of the relationship between
Denver's williams Fork Reservoir, as enlarged,
and the ute Park Reservoir has not, as of this
very moment in time, been definitely resolved.
Counsel met with the court only last Friday in
an attempt to determine the way in which the
court's ruling could be finalized in a decree
and at that time questions which had originally
thought to have been put at rest were raised and
the judge concluded that he was not so sure he
would stick with part of the findings that he
originally made. If there is a change in the
judge's attitude before a final decree is en-
tered by the trial court, it could materially
effect the situation in the trial court. If
the judge adheres completely to his original
memorandum of decision, I can assure this Board
that Denver will appeal and have those matters
reviewed by the Supreme Court. As Mr. Whitten
once. told me, never try to second guess what
that court does in an appeal reviewing a trial
court decision. I would not attempt to either
at this time."

"~ take it then, Mr. Kuiper, that this matter
will be deferred as at our last meeting until