My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Water Committee Agenda and Packet 2011 03 04
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
UTILITY COMMITTEE (pka: Water Committee)
>
2006-2019 Water Committee Agendas and Packets
>
2011 Water Committee Agendas and Packets
>
Water Committee Agenda and Packet 2011 03 04
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 10:46:50 AM
Creation date
2/24/2011 3:35:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
WCPKT 2011 03 04
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
CURRENT STATUS OF CASE <br />Ten statements of opposition were filed, by Water Users <br />Association of District No.6, Town of Superior, state and <br />division engineers, Public Service Company of Colorado, Farmers <br />Reservoir and Irrigation Company, Eldorado Artesian Springs, <br />Inc., City of Westminster, City of Boulder, City and County of <br />Broomfield, and Eldora Enterprises, LLC. This is not an unusual <br />number of parties in this type of case. We were able negotiate <br />a settlement with the Colorado Water Conservation Board (the <br />owner of minimum in stream flow rights), so that the CWCB did <br />not file a statement of opposition. <br />The detailed engineering report, prepared by the City's <br />consulting water engineers, was distributed to the other parties <br />over a year and a half ago. The proposed ruling was forwarded <br />to the parties approximately nine months ago. Unfortunately, <br />we've had no success in receiving comments from the other <br />parties, other than statements that their consulting engineers <br />are reviewing the information. <br />This is somewhat frustrating, due to the fact that the <br />terms and conditions in the proposed ruling are based upon the <br />previous Marshall and SBCC decree. <br />CONCLUSION <br />February 17, 2011 <br />Page 3 of 3 <br />We are still confident that the case can be resolved prior <br />to a trial, through stipulations and agreements with the <br />opposing parties. Moving the case to the judge's docket will <br />provide the best opportunity to obtain a decree for the City as <br />soon as possible. <br />AGH /cmc <br />CC: Tom Phare <br />Very truly yours, <br />TIENKEN HILL, LLP <br />Alan G. Hill <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.