FLOOD06374 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ '" Gregory Wilcox Project Nos. 4024-001 -001 and 6439-001, -002 Project Nos. 6423-001, -002, 6424-001, -002, 6425-001, -002, 6426-001, -002, 64~7-001, -002 and 6428-001. -002 (Issued February 2, 1984) HUGHES, COMMISSIONER, concurrinq; Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association and Montrose Partners I have joined my colleagues in voting to adopt this order with some uneasiness and reluctance. Yet, on balance, this course is one we are compelled to follow. My misgivings center on two areas: the settlement offer we have rejected and the sanction we have imposed. . The settlement offer is given extremely short shrift, being disposed of in footnote 9. Our rejection of it seems based more on the notion that this is not a case that should be settled than on a decision that the particular resolution proposed is not an outcome we will impose on competing parties who opposed it. I find it difficult to say categorically that there are cases which should not be settled. Parties are always encouraged to find ways in which contending interests can be accommodated. while this offer represents a commendable effort to suggest such an accommodation, the understandable reluctance of the other parties to support it leave it as a unilateral offer rather than actual settlement. As such, it is not a resolution to be adopted by the commission. Uncompahgre raises serious Objections to the sanction we have chosen and to what it calls the retroactive application of that sanction. I admit to misgivings on these points, but I do not think we could have followed any other course. We are confronted with a situation where any application by Uncompahgre or Montrose that received first-in-time priority, would undermine Our need to ensure fair competition for available hydro sites. When confronted with such a situation, we simply must exclude those filings which would subvert the broader public interest. It is immaterial whether that harm is intended by the applicant or not, or even whether we could have foreseen it or not. . The sanction period of one year, I am persuaded, serves the same purpose. While it is perhaps unduly long, it is designed to preclude any application by Uncompahgre or Montrose which would enjoy a first-in-time status deriving in any way from the earlier preliminary permit. Events may, of course, unfold more rapidly, with the result that our purpose may be achieved much sooner. We are not precluded from shortening the sa tion eri d, if later developments warrant such equitab a on.