WSP06274 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-' 0011H I I I I , , , rights and the effect of Senate Document 80 upon the obligations The state cdurt adjudica- , tion in Summit County went on without the particip~tion of the District or the United States in taking of testimoJy. The Sum- , mit County District Court, by decree entered March 110, 1952, adjudged that Denver priority shall relate only to 11946 work, , and that the Colorado Springs priority should rela1e only to 19~8 work. These cities' writs of error from that case have been pending since in the Colorado Supreme Court. It was argued orally I in September, 1953. The district, a year ago, ftle~ its fifty-six I There are many hun- I . . of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project. page brief, by the many parties concerned. dred pages of briefs and appendices. Denver, not satisfied to rely on its City At~orneys and water board legal department, has hired two of the Ilargest and I best known Denver law firms as additional attorneys. They sign , I seven attorneys names in this case and in the fede1al court case. D. The ~ in United States Court I I The federal court adjudication, now pending ~ore than I four and one-half years, is stubbornly contested b~ Denver, with many motions which have caused delay. Colorado Springs likewise I has special and eminent counsel opposing us there. i ll.s does the I government, we maintain that city is in a like pos~tion with Den- I ver on lack of activity in construction to entitleq it to date I back to antedate our project for water priority frqm the Colorado , and the Blue. Colorado Springs diversion is high up on Hoosier , Pass, hence of more limited watershed area than th~ 685,000 acre I feet which Denver claims. In frequent recent news~aper publicitt, Denver says it will annually, take from the Blue a ~ess amount, I I 177,000 acre feet. I I , The same arguments apply to. both. Colorado Springs, in November, ,,47, bought an old mining ditch ond t""ie1 work, at , , -6-