ISFAPP00260

• Case Number: 76W2919
• Stream Name: Gill Creek
• Watershed: Dolores River
• Water Division: 4
• Water District: 63
• County: Mesa
• Instream Flow App - Doc Type: Final Decree/Stipulations

'0. .

~c~it~N THE Di;~T COURT'
'YATER DISTIUCT .1L4
IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR _ -;r
'ii';R:i 1m? .
';7f;c;, ~t'~
(]I- ,Ylmacm:<

ii'-.;:.
II '.J
jt';{
,.e,..-
;;.-;!c.r.j

. U' : 'i
I ' ';>. "'1 P
\~ hfNL

WATER DIVISION NO.4

STATE OF COLORADO

Case No. W ~'2919

By____..__.._..._.__._.._..
JJEPliTY

IN THE r1ATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR HATER ~
RIGHTS OF THE COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION
BOARD, IN THE DOLORES RIVER OR ITS TRIBUTARI ,
TRIBUTARY INVOLVED: GILL CREEK, IN )
MESA COUNTY. )

. Thi s matter came on thi s ,,1'/ Aay of
by the United States of America to a referee's rulin
oornn~: .

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DECREE

,,:~,...I, 192Z......, upon the protest
an the Court being advised,

The application is for a surface water right; the United States filed
opposition to the application; the referee entered a ruling and in effect denied
the "relief" requested by the United States; The United States then filed a protest.
to the ruling; the protestant "concedes that diligence has been shown" by the applicant;
that the protestant has no legal grounds for a protest; that there is no substantial
controversy nor material fact controvertea and a summary judgment should enter to save
time and expense to the litigants and to keep from cluttering the court's docket; that
any decree entered is automatically subject to any reserved Federal water rights, if
such is found; that protestant claims the language requested is to put the applicant
on notice of the pending claims; that the statement of opposition serves the same
purpose; that there is no statutory provision requiring an applicant to get a special
use permit from the United States and the inclusion of such language is superfluous
and in addition is'a thinly veiled threat which cannot be enforced by the Court: that
the referee's ruling should be affirmed, as is.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Summary Judgment can enter if there is no genuine issue as to any material
fact and there is no substantial legal controversy. .

2. These matters are controlled by C.R.C.P.

3. A protest shall clearly identify the ruling being contested and shall
state the factual and legal grounds for' the protest. There are no legal grounds included
in the protest. ---

4. The Water Judge may confirm, modify, reverse, or reverse and remand a

ruling.

5. That even though C.R.C.P. does not provide for a summary judgment on Motion
of the Court, the Court may enter the same in a case where the protest does not meet the
requirements of the law.

HHEREFORE, IT IS THE ORDER OF THE. COURT:

1. That the protest of the United States be summarily dismissed, and

2. The rUling of the referee is hereby APPROVED, adopted by the Court, and
made a DECREE.

DONE IN OPEN COURT THIS ;) /~ of tJ1 c,., . e~ ' 197L.

BY THE COURT:

z