Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.. :.,-:-.):-~- <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />I.:,'; <br />, <br /> <br />, r"~ <br /> <br />"-" <br /> <br />,,'!\ <br />I~I <br /><-::'9 <br /> <br />FILED <br />IN THE DISTRICT COURT ' <br />. 'WATER DISTRICT #4 ' <br /> <br />IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND fOR <br />WATER DIVISION NO.4 <br />STATE Of COLORADO <br /> <br />r',1l\R ~ ). FI7l <br /> <br />~'~mRI <br /> <br />Case No. W -?g?O .,--------.---;-.'PEPUiY''.. <br /> <br />IN THE t1ATTER OF THE APPLIcATION FOR WATER I <br />RIGHTS OF THE COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION <br />BOARD, IN THE DOLORES RIVER OR ITS SUMMARY JUOGt1ENT AND DECREE <br />TRIBUTARIES: TRIBUTARY INVOLVED: BIG CREEK, ) <br />IN MESA COUNTY. ) <br /> <br /> <br />'ThiS matter came on this ~7/~ay of ~"',(I 191Z-., Upon the protest <br />by the United States of America ~o a referee's rulin ; ana the Court being advised, <br />OOTH FINO: <br /> <br />The application is for a surface water right; the United States ,filed <br />opposition to the application; the referee entered a ruling and in effect denied <br />the "relief" requested by the United States; The United States then filed a protest: <br />to the rUling; the protestant "concedes that diligence has been shown" by the applicant; <br />that the protestant has no legal grounds for a protest; that there is no substantial <br />controversy nor material fact controverted and a summary judgment should enter to save <br />time and expense to the litigants and to keep from cluttering the court's docket; that <br />any decree entered is autom~tically subject to any reserved Federal water rights, if <br />such is found; that protestant claims the language requested is to put the applicant <br />on notice of the pending cl~ims; that the statement of opposition serves the same <br />purpose; that there is no ~tatutory provision requiring an applicant to get a special <br />use permit from the ,United States and the inclusion of such language is superfluous <br />and in addition is a thinly veiled threat which cannot be enforced by the Court; that <br />the referee's ruling should be affirmed, as is. <br /> <br />CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br /> <br />1. Summary Judgment can enter if there is no genuine issue as to any material <br />fact and there is no substantial legal controversy. <br /> <br />2. These matters are controlled by C.R.C.P. <br /> <br />3. A protest shall clearly identify the ruling being contested and shall <br />state the factual and legal grounds for'the protest. There are no legal grounds included <br />in the protest, --- <br /> <br />4. The Water Judge may confirm, modify, reverse, or reverse and remand a <br /> <br />ruling. <br /> <br />5. That even though C.R,C.P. does not provide for a summary judgment on Motion <br />of the Court, the Court may enter the same in a case where the protest does not meet the <br />requirements of the law. <br /> <br />WHEREFORE, IT IS THE ORDER OF THE COURT: <br /> <br />1. That the protest of the United States be summarily dismissed, and <br />Court, and <br /> <br />made a <br /> <br />2. The ruling of the referee is hereby APPROVED, adopted by the <br />DECREE. <br /> <br />DONE IN OPEN COURT THIS~ (~ay of <br /> <br />1!1c",~ 4.JJ. 1971. <br />I <br /> <br />BY THE COURT: <br /> <br />~r1f 1t( (J 41' <br />Wrter udge <br />'--Olvision No.4 <br />