Laserfiche WebLink
12. Applicant has demonstrated that its plan for augmentation described in paragraph 6 of <br />Section I above will not injuriously affect the owner of or persons entitled to use water <br />under a vested water right or a decreed conditional water right operated subject to the <br />terms and conditions set forth in paragraph 7 of Section I above. <br />III. RULING OF THE REFEREE AND DECREE OF THE WATER COURT <br />13. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as set forth in Sections I and II above are <br />fully incorporated herein and made a part hereof. <br />14. The Referee, having examined the file and the information submitted by Applicant, <br />including, without limitation, the application, the Division Engineer's Summary of <br />Consultation and the Applicant's response thereto, does hereby find and rule that: <br />(a) The application for approval of plan for augmentation described in paragraph 6 of <br />Section I is hereby approved. <br />(b) Under the terms and conditions set forth in paragraph 7 of Section I above, and <br />through operation of the approved plan for augmentation, there will be no injury <br />to any owner of or person entitled to use water under a vested water right or a <br />decreed conditional water right as a result of the entry of this decree. <br />15. The Court shall retain jurisdiction in this proceeding to reconsider the question of injury <br />to the vested water rights of others as provided in C.R.S. § 37 -92- 304(6) for a period of <br />five (5) years from the date the plan for augmentation is operational. If no petition for <br />reconsideration is filed within the period of retained jurisdiction, the retention of <br />jurisdiction shall automatically expire. In the event any person petitions the Court for <br />reconsideration of the question of injury, the Court shall order that an appropriate notice <br />be given to all parties. The petition for reconsideration shall be made in good faith, under <br />oath, and shall set forth with particularity the factual basis upon which the requested <br />reconsideration is premised, together with proposed decretal language to eliminate the <br />injury. The party lodging the petition shall have the burden of going forward to establish <br />prima facie the facts alleged in the petition. If the Court finds those facts to be <br />established, Applicant or its successors and assigns shall thereupon bear the burden of <br />proof to show: (a) that any modification to the decree that is sought by the petitioner will <br />not avoid injury to other water rights; or (b) that any modification to the decree proposed <br />by Applicant will avoid injury to other water rights. <br />It is hereby ORDERED that this Ruling shall be filed with the Water Clerk subject to <br />judicial review. It is further ORDERED that a copy of this Ruling shall be filed with the <br />Division Engineer for Water Division 1 and the State Engineer. <br />Freund Investments, LLC <br />Case No. 11 CW107, Water Division I <br />Page 7 of 8 <br />