ISFAPP01252 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~; stipulation, it is appropriate for such parties to file stipulations with the Court. It is further appropriate for the Court to accept such stipulations or state solid reasons why the stipulation should not be accepted. Colorado River Water Conservation District v. Bar Forty Seven Co., 195 Colo. 478, 579 P.2d 636 (1978); u.s. v. Northern Colorado Conservancy District, 608 F.2d 422 (10th Cir. 1979). 6. Stipulations are appropriate in this type of circumstance where a party stipulates or makes an agreement concerning a valuable property right. Moreover, the Court should recognize a stipulation when such stipulation does not violate rules of public policy. Kempter v. Hurd, 713 P.2d 1274 (Colo. 1986). Court approval of a stipulation is especially appropriate in a case such as this where no questions oflaw are raised and where the stipulation does not create manifest injustice. Bar 70 Enterprises, Inc. v. Tosco Corp., 703 P.2d 1297 (Colo. 1985); Lake Meredith Reservoir Co. v. Amiti Mut. Irri. Co., 698 P.2d 1340 (Colo. 1985). 7. Counsel for the CWCB has conferred with Andrew Peternell, Counsel for the objector, who has consented to this Motion. WHEREFORE, the CWCB moves this Court to enter an Order vacating the telephone status conference scheduled for June 1,2004 at 10:30 a.m.; approving the Stipulation entered into between the CWCB and Trout Unlimited; and entering the attached Findings and Ruling of Referee and Decree of the Water Court. 'I ] 1l- Dated this L- \ day of May, 2004. KEN SALAZAR Attorney General / //{ !' ~' / /" ,1/ , . .- \ /. ~ /1(. '.. / f"-- Z'/' \ f (f,.: ~)d ~--rNDA J. BASSI* First Assistant A.dorney General ALEXANDRA L. DA VIS* Assistant Attorney General Natural Resources and Environment Section Attorneys for CWCB *Counsel of Record 2