Laserfiche WebLink
MOSES, WITTEMYER, HARRISON AND WOODRUFF, P.C. <br /> <br /> <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board <br />December 14, 2018 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br /> <br />00187068-1 <br />Based on the Applicants’ failure to meet the Criteria and Guidelines’ minimum <br />requirement for identification of the specific water rights to be included in the pilot project, <br />including the ownership of those water rights and the associated share certificate numbers, CWCB <br />should table consideration of the Proposal until the Applicants have delivered this information to <br />the CWCB and the parties. CWCB also should address Applicants’ mischaracterization of the <br />FLCC letter attached to the Proposal as Exhibit D. <br />Should CWCB determine to select the Proposal in spite of its failure to meet this minimum <br />requirement of the Criteria and Guidelines, LAWMA asks that CWCB, on the record, (i) explain <br />why this requirement does not apply to the Proposal; and (ii) decide that CWCB will accept no <br />application that does not identify the specific water rights to be included in the pilot project, <br />including ownership of the water rights and associated share certificate numbers. <br />2. Specific lands to be dried up <br />With respect to lands under the Rocky Ford High Line Canal and the Fort Lyon Canal, the <br />Applicants have not yet met the minimum requirement for a proposal to identify “the specific lands <br />and parcels that will be analyzed and dried up, and the ownership of them.” § II.F.1.b. While <br />Exhibit C to the Proposal includes maps of the specific parcels of Catlin land to be dried up, <br />Exhibits E and G include maps of all of the land historically irrigated by the Fort Lyon and Rocky <br />Ford canals, with no identification of specific dry-up parcels. <br />For the reasons given in Section 1 above, CWCB should table consideration of the Proposal <br />until the Applicants have delivered to the CWCB and the parties this required information about <br />specific dry-up parcels under the Rocky Ford and Fort Lyon canals. Should CWCB determine to <br />select the Proposal in spite of its failure to meet this minimum requirement of th e Criteria and <br />Guidelines, LAWMA asks that CWCB, on the record, (i) explain why this requirement does not <br />apply to the Proposal; and (ii) decide that CWCB will accept no application that does not identify <br />the specific Rocky Ford and Fort Lyon parcels to be rotationally fallowed under the pilot project. <br />3. Necessary approvals from and agreements with FLCC and/or its shareholders <br />With respect to inclusion of FLCC share water in the proposed pilot project, the Applicants <br />have not yet met the minimum requirement for a proposal to include “evidence to demonstrate that <br />all necessary approvals and agreements between ditch companies [and] ditch members . . . have <br />been obtained or reasonably will be obtained.” § II.F.3. While Super Ditch may have begun <br />discussions with FLCC’s Board and certain FLCC shareholders, Super Ditch has not yet obtained <br />the right to use any FLCC shares in the proposed pilot project and has not obtained approval to use <br />infrastructure owned by the FLCC or its shareholders. Further, as described in Section 1 above, <br />the Applicants have plainly misrepresented the FLCC letter attached to the Proposal as Exhibit D,