 |
|
|
|
|
| 12/22/2009 6:00:00 AM | Email this article • Print this article | Water debate continues
Judge hears Montezuma Valley Irrigation, Dolores Water Conservancy
Kimberly Benedict
Journal Staff Writer
Settlement talks between Montezuma Valley Irrigation Co. and the Dolores Water Conservancy District have reached the end of the year without resolution after a series of postponed meetings and anti-climactic hearings.
MVIC filed suit against the conservancy district and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation in June for allegedly not meeting water requirements agreed to in 1977 contracts of the Dolores Project.
Representatives of both groups appeared before Magistrate Judge David L. West in Durango on Thursday. The purpose of the hearing, originally scheduled as a settlement conference, was to determine whether or not sanctions were to be imposed on MVIC for "failure to not have their expert, Mike Applegate or a representative of his firm, present at the Oct. 22, 2009, Settlement Conference," according to the minute order from district court.
"The hearing (Thursday) was merely procedural," said Randy Carver, MVIC board president. "It has no bearing on the case. The opposing counsel believed that we were not negotiating in good faith, which is not true."
Formal sanctions were not imposed at the hearing, according to Carver.
"I'd have to say it was kind of left open," he said. "We don't know. It (the hearing) was just kind of to be everybody back on track."
The conservancy's general manager, Mike Preston, said that regardless of sanctions, Thursday's hearing was necessary for the larger goal of moving forward in the settlement process.
"What's happened is that MVIC has new counsel and their legal counsel is trying to get prepared to continue with the settlement talks," Preston said. "That is where the settlement process is."
Formally represented by local attorney Kelly McCabe, MVIC recently retained Kent Holsinger of Holsinger Law LLC, of Denver, as new representation. Carver declined to comment on the reasoning behind the switch.
Both parties maintain settlement talks remain their top priority.
"The outcome yesterday, what matters to us, is that there will be another settlement conference scheduled in a month or so," Preston said. "We hope to continue moving towards a settlement agreement."
Carver agrees talks are necessary and has suggested the two boards meet, without attorneys, to seek common ground.
At a conservancy board meeting on Nov. 12, Carver addressed the board, requesting such a meeting and gauging the level of interest. The meeting never came to fruition.
"I never got a response from the district regarding that formal request," Carver said. "I didn't' get a phone call. I didn't get an e-mail. I didn't get anything from the board. That's what needs to happen. We all live in the same community, and we need to talk. We need to work it out."
Preston did not rule out the possibility of a meeting but stated the decision remains in the boards' hands.
"That's between the boards as to whether they want to meet or not," he said. "From the DWC perspective, we are hopeful that a settlement can be reached and we are kind of making every effort to move things in that direction."
Journal Staff Writer Steve Grazier and Journal Denver Bureau reporter Joe Hanel contributed to this report.
Reach Kimberly Benedict at kimberlyb@cortezjournal.com
|
Article Comment Submission Form
|
|
|
|
|
