Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />DECREE PROPOSED FOR SETTLEMENT BETWEEN <br />SAN LUIS VALLEY IRRIGTlON DISTRICT AND THE <br />COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD <br />MAY 13, 2005 <br /> <br />43, The State Engineer, in the discharge of his responsibilities with respect to the <br />processing of applications for permits to withdraw groundwater, shall recognize the <br />existence and operation of this Plan for Augmentation and shall issue permits in <br />accordance with the Plan, so long as the Plan is in operation. Each permit issued by the <br />State pursuant to this Plan shall incorporate within it by reference the terms and conditions <br />of this Decree. <br /> <br />44. Approval of this Plan for Augmentation, including the conditional appropriative <br />right of exchange shall be subject to reconsideration by the Water Judge on the question of <br />injury to the vested water rights of the Applicant and others, including reconsideration of <br />the water delivery schedule set forth in paragraph 14 of this Decree, for a period of twenty <br />(20) years from the date this Decree is entered by the Court, The Court also retains <br />jurisdiction for the purpose of revising this Decree to comply with rules and regulations <br />promulgated by the State Engineer pursuant to C.R.S. S 37 -90-137(12)(b)(I). <br /> <br />45. In the event any party petitions the Court for reconsideration of any of the . <br />provisions of this Decree, the Court shall order that appropriate notice and an opportunity <br />to be heard be given to all parties. Any petition for reconsideration of this Decree on the <br />grounds of injury shall be made in good faith, under oath, and shall set forth with <br />particularity the factual basis upon which the requested reconsideration is premised,- <br />together with proposed decretal language to affect the petition. The party lodging the c <br />petition shall have the burden of going forward to establish prima facie the facts alleged in <br />the petition. If the Court finds this burden has been met, the Applicant shall thereupon <br />bear the burden of proof to show: (a) that any modification sought by the Applicant will <br />avoid injury to other appropriators; (b) that any modification sought by objectors are not <br />required to avoid injury to other appropriators; or, (c) that any term or condition proposed <br />by the Applicant in response to the objector's petition avoids injury to other appropriators. <br /> <br />46, This Decree is the product of compromise and settlement negotiations <br />between the parties hereto and the issues were not actually litigated. Accordingly, nothing <br />in this Decree shall be construed to preclude any party from litigating, in any different case <br />involving the same or similar issues, any matter determined in this Decree. The facts of <br />this case are unique and therefore this Decree is not intended to be, and shall not be, <br />construed as a binding precedent in other cases now pending before or hereafter filed in <br />the District Court for Water Division NO.3. <br /> <br />Page 20 of 21 <br />