Laserfiche WebLink
MOSES, WITTEMYER, HARRISON AND WOODRUFF, P.C. <br /> <br /> <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board <br />December 14, 2018 <br />Page 5 <br /> <br /> <br />00187068-1 <br />minimum requirement of the Criteria and Guidelines, LAWMA asks that CWCB, on the record, <br />(i) explain why this requirement does not apply to the Proposal; and (ii) decide that CWCB will <br />accept no application that includes FLCC share water in the absence of evidence that the FLCC <br />Board has expressly approved the temporary change of use of water rights associated with <br />specified FLCC shares to be included in the pilot project. <br />4. Necessary approvals from and agreements with Rocky Ford and/or its shareholders <br />As with FLCC approvals and agreements, the Applicants have not yet met the minimum <br />requirement for a proposal to include “evidence to demonstrate that all necessary approvals and <br />agreements between ditch companies [and] ditch members . . . have been obtained or reasonably <br />will be obtained” for Rocky Ford share water. § II.F.3. The Proposal attaches a “letter of intent” <br />from the Rocky Ford Board of Directors, which letter makes a general statement of support for the <br />proposed project and explains that “the Board will make reasonable efforts to obtain from its <br />shareholders approval of participation in the CS-U Pilot Project at the next shareholder meeting in <br />December 2018.” Like the FLCC letter, however, the Rocky Ford letter includes no commitment <br />of Rocky Ford share water to the proposed project. In addition, while LAWMA is not a Rocky <br />Ford shareholder and is not familiar with that company’s bylaws, we think it likely that <br />participating Rocky Ford shareholders will need to obtain the company’s approval of a temporary <br />change in use of any Rocky Ford share water before that water may be included in an application <br />for a pilot project. <br />CWCB therefore should table consideration of the Proposal until the Applicants have <br />delivered to the CWCB and the parties the required evidence that the Applicants have obtained or <br />reasonably can obtain the necessary approvals of and/or agreements with the Rocky Ford and its <br />shareholders. Should CWCB determine to select the Proposal in spite of its failure to meet this <br />minimum requirement of the Criteria and Guidelines, LAWMA asks that CWCB, on the record, <br />(i) explain why this requirement does not apply to the Proposal; and (ii) decide that CWCB will <br />accept no application that includes Rocky Ford share water in the absence of evidence that the <br />Rocky Ford Board has given any bylaw-required approval of the temporary change of use of water <br />rights associated with specified Rocky Ford shares to be included in the pilot project. <br />5. Potential overlap with Catlin Pilot Project <br />As shown in attached Table 1, certain Catlin shareholders whose shares would be included <br />in the proposed pilot project also own shares that are included in the Catlin Pilot Project. Land <br />and water included in one pilot project cannot be included in another pilot project. <br />C.R.S. § 37-60-115(8)(d)(XI); Criteria and Guidelines § II.L.