Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Page 4 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />the Interior Babbitt proposed what has been called Animas-La Plata Ultra Lite -- a project <br />limited to Indian and M&I uses. Despite this blow to the hopes of irrigators on the La Plata, the <br />Tribes and water users put forward a proposal very similar to the Administration's, which Rep. <br />McInnis incorporated into proposed legislation - H.R. 3112. On January 13th, Rec1arnation <br />issued a draft supplemental EIS on the project that proposes a preferred alternative very similar <br />to H.R. 3112. By the time you receive this report, Sen. Campbell may have introduced a similar <br />bill. The water users and the Tribes have made major concessions to satisfy environmental and <br />budget concerns. I will continue to support the State/water user/tribal push for legislation that <br />will finally and fairly resolye the Tribes' claims without taking water away from non-Indian <br />water users. <br /> <br />Union Park, Colorado Supreme Court <br /> <br />Issue: Did the water court correctly determine the amount of water available for <br />appropriation of water rights for the Union Park Reservoir Project?, <br /> <br />Decision: <br /> <br />Pending <br /> <br />Discussion: This case was argued before the Colorado Supreme Court on March I, 2000. <br />Steve Sims presented the argument on behalf of the State and the other objectors. We expect <br />a decision in several months. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Application for Buffalo Park Development Co. et a!., Case No. 94CW 290, Div. 1 <br /> <br />Issue: Whether the applicants appropriated water on September 12, 1994, one day before <br />CWCB appropriated instream flow rights on the Bear Creek and Turkey Creek system, and <br />whether the water court should dismiss the application for failure to meet the can-and-will <br />standard and for speculation concerns? <br /> <br />Decision: After a two week trial, Judge Hays conditionally denied opposers' motions to <br />dismiss but determined that the applicants did not appropriate their water rights until December <br />31, 1994, making them junior to the instrearn flow rights. Further, he found that if (or when) the <br />instream flow rights are decreed, there is insufficient water to complete the appropriation. <br /> <br />Discussion: Alex Davis and Jennifer Gimbel represented CWCB and the State and Division <br />Engineers in this case. Applicants are seeking conditional water rights and an augmentation plan <br />on Bear Creek and Turkey Creek. They claimed an appropiation date one day prior to the <br />CWCB instrearn flow appropriations. CWCB filed a statement of opposition challenging the <br />appropriation date and the adequacy of the augmentation plan. Other objectors active at trial in <br />the case included Red Rocks Country Club, Jefferson County, Town of Morrison, Foothills <br />Metropolitan Recreation and Park District, Bear Mountain Homeowners Association and various <br />individuals. After applicants presented their case to the court, the objectors moved to dismiss the <br />application on the grounds that the application was speculative, that the applicants failed to prove <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />,:f <br /> <br />4 <br />