Laserfiche WebLink
Case No. 94CW076, Findings o(Fact, Conclusions of Law and <br />Decree of the Court Approving Absolute and Conditional Cround <br />Water Rights, Plan of Augmentation snd for Change of Water Rights, <br />Application of the City of Blsck Hawk, <br />Pege 2 <br />in Case Nos. 92CW059 and 94CW036, the applications of the City of Black Hawk and Case No. <br />92CW 168, the application ofthe City of Central, be severed from the respective cases and tried in a <br />separate hearing. Pursuant to the Court's order, the water quality issues were to be tried first, with <br />the remaining issues in the cases to be tried in a subsequent proceeding. The consolidation for trial <br />did not merge the three actions into one, and the parties to one action did not become parties to the <br />others merely by virtue of the consolidation. <br />4. On October 24, 2000, this Court entered an Order approving stipulations between <br />the Cities of Black Hawk and Central and the opposers in Case Nos. 92CW059, 94CW036 and <br />92CW 168 settling all water quality issues. On January 8, 2001, the Cities of Black Hawk and Central <br />filed with the Court a Notice of Funding Pursuant to Stipulation, certifying that funding was in place <br />under the original stipulations. On January 17, 2001, the Court ordered the termination of the <br />consolidation of Case Nos. 92C W059, 94CW036 and 92CW 168 for hearing on water quality issues. <br />5. Timely statements ofopposition to the original Application in this matter were filed <br />by: the Cities of Arvada, Central, Golden, Northglenn and Westminster; The Vidler Tunnel Water <br />Company, Inc.; The Consolidated Mutual Water Company; Farmers' High Line Canal and Reservoir <br />Company; Beverly Building Company; The Church Ditch Company; The Agricultural Ditch and <br />Reservoir Company and The Golden Canal and Reservoir Company; Malvin Smith and Billie Jean <br />Smith, M.D. and Albert B. Dawkins, er al; the State Engineer and the Division Engineer for Water <br />Division No. 1; and the Colorado Water Conservation Board. On September 7, 1994, the City of <br />Thomton moved to intervene. With Applicant's consent, Thornton was allowed to intervene. On <br />March 7, 1995, David Douglass moved to intervene. The court granted his motion on March 31, <br />1995. Timely statements ofopposition to the Amended Application in this matter were filed by the <br />Coors Brewing Company, the Public Service Company of Colorado, Lucie A. Crawley, David and <br />Kathyrn Fulenwider, Michael and Jan Gutierrez, and the Board ofCounty Commissioners for Gilpin <br />County. Timely statements ofopposition to the Second Amended Application in this matter were <br />filed by the Central Colorado Water Conservancy District and the Ground Water Management <br />Subdistrict of the Central Colorado Water Conservancy District, The Farmers Reservoir and <br />Irrigation Company ("FRiCO"), and Jefferson County, Colorado. A timely statement of opposition <br />to the Third Amendment to Application was filed by the Board of County Commissioners of the <br />County of Clear Creek. <br />6. On April 20, 2001, the Court ordered that the following pro se parties were no <br />longer parties to this matter and were precluded from participating further in this matter: Mona M. <br />Dawkins; Agnes DePoyster; Steve DePoyster; Nick and Rosetta Feltis; John D. Ficke; Joan L. and <br />Ivan T. Gerardo; Kathy Gordon and David Moseley; Alan Gustafson; Dean Gustafson; Michael and <br />V. <br />AA <br />