My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP06274
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
6001-7000
>
WSP06274
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:22:01 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 1:32:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8430.100
Description
Platte River Basin-Water User Groups and Conservancy-Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District
Basin
South Platte
Water Division
1
Date
12/31/1953
Title
Legal Report-Report of Attorneys to District Board of Directors on Legal Matters for the Year 1953
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
40
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />001116 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />By an amendment offered in the federal court case on <br />September 30, 1953 it asks to add a further 200 second foot <br />constant flow to this plant which itmys the Eagle County Dis- <br />trict Court decreed it this September in a statutory adjudication <br />after the federal court adjudication suit was filed, and to date <br />from 1930--three years ahead of us. The date and amount of this <br />claim will be relitigated in the federal court suit. It is <br />contrary to former calculations for our transmountain diversions. <br />~ Moffat Tunnel Water and Development Company Claim <br />This is a conflict with our water rights. It seeks in <br />federal court to antedate our Colorado River water rights. It <br />claims a 125 second foot priority for a ditch and for a large <br />amount for reservoirs out of the Fraser River and Ranch Creek, <br />its tributary, to date from July 15, 1932. It was awarded a <br />conditional decree of that date by the Grand County District <br />Court in an adjudication. Our project was not a claimant, did <br />not participate in that proceeding. It ended early in 1937 be- <br />fore our district was organized. We claim that because our <br />appropriators were not served with notice, we are not barred by <br />this conditional decree~ The Supreme Court on review, said that, <br />at the time of its entry, there was no evidence in the case of <br />conflicting claims and the reasonable diligence is subject to <br />later reconsideration when at subsequent hearings :effort is made <br />to get a final decree. These matters can be tried in federal <br />court; we deny a sufficient showing of diligence in construction <br />to support a priority to that company of that amount for that <br />date. <br />Denver's Fraser River and Williams River Conditional Decrees <br />The Grand County District Court, by a decre~ entered in <br />early 1937 gave Denver a priority, in part final, :in part condi- <br />tional for its work from the Fraser and Williams ~ork, relating <br /> <br />-8- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.