Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'<:j'l <br />c, C-2 <br />If:) <br />.-j <br />o <br /> <br />~~ There is no question that the administration of water in Water Division 3 and the <br /> <br />San Luis Valley is an extremely complex and complicated problem. The records <br /> <br />of this court and prior adjudications disclose this complexity. Like no <br /> <br />other area in the State of Colorado, we are confronted with the attendant <br /> <br />problems of senior surface appropriators, junior surface appropriators, pre- <br /> <br />compact reservoirs, post-compact reservoirs, trans-mountain diversions, irrigation <br /> <br />districts, both surface and underground municipal uses, an interstate compact <br />-and obligations thereunder, numerous and varied confined and unconfined <br /> <br />aquifers, rechange areas for confined aquifers, drains and drainage districts, <br /> <br />numerous areas where artesian flows are present, irrigation and other wells <br /> <br />in close proximity to streams as well as extreme distances from streams, <br /> <br />difficulties inestabl iShing and defining hYdrologic boundaries, transmissivity <br />of water, varying hydraulic connections between aquifers and streams and a very <br />large area COnmonly referred to as the Closed Basin. It is therefore very <br />understandable that water owners and users and entities concerned with <br /> <br />legal administration would become extremely concerned with the Proposed Rules <br />and Regulations as submitted. <br />The numerous protests and objections as filed herein to the proposed Rules <br />and Regulations are directed to claimed legal as well as factual deficiencies. <br />The Water Court must therefore make a close analyzation of the Proposed Rules <br />and Regulations in order to determine if such are in legal compliance with <br />the statutory provisions of C.R.S. 1973, 37-92-501 and 502. The Court has not <br />considered the factual objections because a consideration of such must of <br />necessity require an evidentiary hearing. There are certain factual realities <br />which the Court can consider in light of the statutory provisions because it <br />is for sure the legislative intent was not to the effect that the Court should <br />operate in an intellectual vacuum totally- disassociated with obvious realities. <br /> <br />'- <br />i <br />