Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />".'1 <br /> <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />i <br /> <br />terminating at Lake Granby, which lake is a part of the <br /> <br /> <br />Colorado - Big Thompson Project. <br /> <br />B. Azure Reservoir and Power proiect. A proposed <br /> <br /> <br />water storage and hydroelectric power project located on the <br /> <br />main stem of the Colorado River approximately 8-1/2 miles <br /> <br />west of the Town of Kremmling. <br /> <br /> <br />C. Una Reservoir. A proposed water storage and <br /> <br />hydroelectric project on the mainstem of the Colorado River <br /> <br /> <br />located in DeBeque Canyon near the Town of DeBeque. <br /> <br />PAR'! III <br />RECITALS <br /> <br />A. In 1968, Ralph H. Price, as trustee for the <br />cities of Boulder, Longmont, Estes Park, Loveland, Fort <br />Collins, and Greeley filed claims for certain conditional <br />water rights for the Windy Gap Water System, hereinafter <br />termed the "Windy Gap Project" in the District Court for <br />Grand County in a supplemental water adjudication, Civil <br />Action No. 1768, and under the provisions of the 1943 Adjudi- <br />cation Act. The claims were subsequently assigned ~d deeded <br />to Subdistrict upon its creation. <br />B. In April, 1972, hearings on the claims were <br />held by Michael D. White, a Referee, appropriately appointed <br />to conduct such hearinqs. On April 8" 1974, Referee White <br />entered his findinqs, conclusions of law and recommendations, <br />and subsequently, after several additional hearings before <br />both Charles F. Stewart and George E. Lohr, Water Judges for <br />Water Division 5, Judge Lohr by Order dated February 23, <br />1978, granted the conditional decrees sought by Subdistrict. <br />C. Upon the granting of the conditional decrees <br />for Subdistrict's windy Gap Project, River District appealed <br />Judge Lohr's decision to the supreme Court of Colorado, <br />Docket No. 28417, where on September 14, 1979, the Supreme <br />Court reversed Judge Lohr's decision and remanded the action <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />0946 <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />-3- <br />