Laserfiche WebLink
Ruling of Referee and Decree <br />Applicants: Rodney C. Power, Henrietta tt. Power, Ronald E. Tipping, Marie Tipping, and Larry B. Beckner <br />Case No. 07 CW 117 <br />Page 3 <br />(4) Amounts and Appropriation Dates: <br />i. 1.5 c.f.s., absolute; with an appropriation date of.lune 1. 1954. <br />ii. 2.0 c.f.s., conditional, with an appropriation date of October 1.4, 1975. This <br />amount was subsequently made absolute by decree entered on April 13, 1981. in <br />Case No. 80DW331. <br />(5) Historic Use: Irrigation of up to 150 acres of land located in Sections 14 and 21, <br />T.2S., R.1E.., I_Ite P.M. <br />(6) By decree entered on October 9, 2001, Case No. 01CW049, the Puckett Ditch was <br />changed to include the following uses, in addition to the historic use for irrigating <br />agricultural crops: Industrial use in connection with sand and gravel mining <br />activities, including but not limited to replacement of evaporation losses during and <br />after completion of sand and gravel mining activities. dust suppression, replacement <br />of product moisture losses resulting from aggregate removal and processing, and <br />aggregate washing activities. These conditional uses were awarded the appropriation <br />date of April 9, 2001. <br />4. The most recent filing; with respect to the above Water Rights was an Application for Change <br />of Water Rights, Case No. O1 CW049, in the :District Court for Water Division No. 4, <br />whereby the points of diversion were changed and the conditional industrial uses added as <br />described above in Paragraphs 3.A and B. By Decree dated October 9, 2001, the Court <br />ordered that the month and calendar year for filing an application Bar a finding of reasonable <br />diligence for the conditional water rights described above be October, 2007. <br />5. Applicant in the Application requests that the Court enter an order determining that <br />Applicant has been reasonably diligent in this diligence period in the development of each of <br />the conditional rights listed in Paragraph 3, above, and that such rights be continued. <br />6. .After the informal investigation mandated by § 37-92-302(4), C.R.S., the Referee finds that <br />the statements in the Application are true. The Referee further specifically finds as follows: <br />A. Dwing the intervening years after the original decree for the water rights described in <br />Paragraph 3 above, were entered, and at timely intervals, the owners of such water rights <br />have shown to the Court that reasonable diligence has been exercised in the development <br />of all of the conditional water rights described in Paragraph 3 above, and the Court has <br />continued the conditional water rights in full force and effect. <br />B. The decree in the last diligence proceeding for the water rights described in Paragraph 3 <br />above required that the next diligence application for the water rights be filed in October, <br />2007. The Application in this case was filed on October 22, 2007. <br />C. The Applicant has been reasonably diligent in the preceding diligence period with respect <br />to the development of each of the conditional water rights listed in Paragraph 3, above. <br />D. The Referee has consulted with the Division Engineer concerning the Application, Ls <br />required by Section 37-92-302(1). C.R.S. As a result of ghat consultation, the Divisiun <br />Engineer issued a Response dated January 10. 2008. The Response rceommends