Laserfiche WebLink
<br />UNITED STATES <br />DEPARTMEN~ OF THE INTERIOR <br />BUREAU OF RECLAMATION <br /> <br />208 Federal Building <br />Salt Lake City, Utah <br />April 6. 1943 <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM OF POINTS CONCERNING ADJUDICATION OF WATER DISTRICT 3~. <br />SUGGESTED BY MR. BEISE. (CONFERENCE DElIVER MARCH 18, 1943). <br /> <br />1. Claim of City of Denver in two pending cases, at Breckenridge was compared <br />by Mr. Beise with }lr. Allen and two claims' are identical. although filed: in two <br />separate proceedings, each for a different purpose" This, may be objectionable' and <br />advantage thereof may be desired to be taken by Mr. Allen by Motion, or otherwise, <br />in the event any pleadings are filed by the United States in opposition to Denver's <br />claim. <br /> <br />2. All grounds of Appellate jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Cour~ from <br />a decision in a State Supreme Court are to be ohecked and Statement of Claim should <br />lay foundation for appeal to United States Supreme Court, taking advantage of as many <br />statutes as is possible in the event the Supreme Court of Colorado renders, a decision <br />unfavorable to the United States. <br />3. Paragraph 153. Chap. 90, Vol. 3. C. S. A. should be considered in preparation <br />of Statement of Claim and reference made to entire Big Thompson Project so that effect <br />of granting Denver a prior right could be shown as a matter of record. <br /> <br />4. Statement of Claim of Denver propose~ to fill and refill reservoir$ on Eastern <br />Slope. It is doubtful if any filing with State Engineer for two fillings of these <br />reservoirs has been made. Some further consideration might be given this point. Also <br />such reservoirs as are built probably all ready have decreed rights. <br /> <br />5. Statement of Claim of Denver covers, exchanges: of water on Eastern Slope' which <br />may have no bearing on seeking of a decree on the Western Slope, as exchanges are ordinarily <br />llIri:g.,..n, limited to the: river frolD which waters: are originallly taken and the Distriot <br />Courtt of Summi"tl; County has no jurisdiction over the Platte River. <br /> <br />6. Under what authority is the Big Thompson Project being constructed:. i. e., <br />Reclamation Act of 1902, or power acts: referred to above, or Senate Document 80 and <br />Appropriation Acts7 This question suggested by Mr. Devrie$. While worthy of consideration, <br />this office has heretofore considered that the project was being built under the 1902 Act. <br />but such would have a bearing on the citation and factual statutes in the Statement of <br />Claim. Apparently Senate Document 80 is involved in this project. Is this document <br />a federal statute? <br /> <br />7. Ple& of res' adjudicata ~ what is effect of decree of Distriot Court of Summit <br />County rendered in 19371 In this connection, attention is directed to the fact that <br />federal lands, were withdrawn under the Act of June 17, 1902 (Reolamation Act} by the <br />Secretary on September 14, 1937, and also by act of the Secretary on August 20, 1937. <br />These withdrawals were made under the Reclamation Law and are first form withdrawals, <br />and if Denver had no rights at that time such might constitute a separate withdrawi of <br />public waters; Advantage might be taken of this in the event that advantage cannot <br />be taken of the withdrawals taken to 1909. 1910, 1925. <br /> <br />2539 <br />