Source: https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2010/05/24/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 14:23:46+00:00

Document:
The governor is expected to sign HB 10-1284 and SB 10-109 into law sometime in the coming weeks.
See our previous coverage of Colorado’s evolving medical marijuana law here.
We see businesses addressing privacy issues on a daily basis. We receive annual privacy notices from our banks and sign privacy notices when we visit our doctor. Changes in privacy controls by online social media sites generate much controversy. But what obligations do businesses generally have for the personal information of individuals that they collect, use, store, and share?
These are the issues that noted Denver attorney Bruce L. Plotkin, chair of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck’s Intellectual Property and Technology Group, will address next Wednesday, June 2, in a one-hour lunchtime program, To Use and Protect: Privacy Basics for Business.
Federal regulators and state legislators have been busy producing a significant number of new privacy requirements applicable to many businesses. This program will provide an overview of the privacy law landscape for businesses and focus on some of the most critical privacy issues that they face today.
The Colorado Supreme Court on May 24, 2010, issued its opinion in two consolidated water law cases: In the Matter of the Application for Water Rights of the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority in Eagle and Summit Counties; and In the Matter of the Application for Water Rights of the City of Aurora, City of Colorado Springs, Colorado River Water Conservation District, Eagle Park Reservoir Company, Eagle River Water & Sanitation District, Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority, and Vail Associates, Inc. in Eagle, Garfield, Grand, Pitkin, and Summit Counties.
Augmentation Plan—Retained Jurisdiction—CRS § 37-92-304(6)—Burden to Invoke Retained Jurisdiction—Operation of Augmentation Plan—Accounting for Out-of-Priority Diversions, Depletions, and Replacements—Invocation of Retained Jurisdiction to Preclude or Remedy Injury.
The water court dismissed the petitions of the State and Division Engineers and the Colorado Water Conservation Board seeking to invoke the retained jurisdiction provisions of two augmentation plan decrees held by the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority (Authority). The Colorado Supreme Court reviewed the water court’s judgments of dismissal and accompanying questions involving the water court’s construction and implementation of the augmentation plan retained jurisdiction provision, CRS § 37-92-304(6) of the Water Right Determination and Administration Act of 1969. The Court reversed the water court’s judgments.
The Court held that the water court erred in dismissing the petitions in both of these cases. The petitions allege sufficient facts that, if proved, meet the petitioners’ burden of showing that injury has occurred or is likely to occur, based on operational experience involving the actual mix of out-of-priority diversions and consumptive depletions covered by the augmentation plans. Reviewing the petitions, the water court should have conducted additional proceedings in both of these cases pursuant to CRS § 37-92-304(6).
The Court disagreed with the Authority’s argument that water court retained jurisdiction under § 304(6) can be invoked to remedy only actual injury to a decreed water right. The Court held that the plain language of CRS § 37-92-304(6) directs the water court’s use of retained jurisdiction “as is necessary or desirable to preclude or remedy any such injury,” and the water court should extend the period of retained jurisdiction for such time as “the nonoccurrence of injury shall not have been conclusively established.” The case was remanded for further proceedings.
The Tenth Circuit on Monday issued one published opinion and ten unpublished opinions.
In Fletcher v. Burkhalter, the Court reviewed the appeal of a state actor in a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983, whose request for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity was denied by the district court. The Court determined it did not have jurisdiction to review the district court’s determinations of factual sufficiency, and otherwise upheld the district court’s determinations.
On May 11, the Colorado Legislature sent HB 10-1284, a controversial bill creating a regulatory framework for the distribution of medical marijuana in Colorado, to Gov. Ritter’s desk for his signature. What are the provisions of the legislation, and will they blunt activity in Colorado’s burgeoning medical marijuana industry?
Find out all this and more on Thursday, June 23, when CBA CLE hosts Colorado State Representative Tom Massey (R-Poncha Springs), HB 10-1284’s main sponsor, and Warren Edson, architect of the constitutional amendment codifying the legalization of medical marijuana in Colorado, in a joint presentation, Medical Marijuana Reform: The Definitive Update on HB 10-1284.
Rep. Massey will present a comprehensive overview of the new medical marijuana law, and explain what it intends to accomplish; its role in protecting the public; and its intended impact on clients, patients, caregivers, law enforcement, and the public. Edson will address how the newly enacted law is anticipated to affect the regulation of the medical marijuana industry and what these changes mean to clients, patients, caregivers, and law enforcement. He will also discuss how the new law impacts medical marijuana dispensaries as we know them today, and will point out the areas overlooked by the new legislation and how they will survive the new law. The program will close with a 30-minute Q&A session.

References: § 37
 § 37
 § 37
 § 304
 § 37
 v.