Laserfiche WebLink
<br />(,t;) <br />(~~, <br />In <br />...., <br />C..::J The protestants in the various protests that have been filed have Con- <br />'80 <br />sistent1y raised the issue of the State Engineer's assertion that compact <br /> <br />C-4 <br /> <br />deliveries constitute the most senior water commitment in the Rio Grande and <br /> <br />Conejos River basins. Regulation II, A, states "Administration of all surface <br /> <br />water tributary to the Rio Grande or the Conejos River will be based on the <br />fact that the delivery of certain quantities of water pursuant to the Compact <br />constitutes the most senior water commitment in the Rio Grande and Conejos <br /> <br />River Basins." Regulations III, A, also states "Administration of all <br /> <br />underground water tributary to the Rio Grande or the Conejos River will be <br />based on the fact that the delivery of certain quantities of water pursuant to <br />the Compact constitutes the most senior water commitment in the Rio Grande <br />Basin." It is interesting to note the State Engineer did not include the <br />Conejos River Basin at the end of the first sentence of Regulation III, A. <br />Protests were heard and determined in accordance with the applicable provisions <br />of C.R.S. 1973, 37-92-304 and the Court can confirm, modify, reverse, or <br />reverse and remand. The duty on the Water Court is therefore clear and all <br />portions of the Proposed Rules and Regulations must be taken into consideration <br />separately and as a whole in detennining statutory compliance and legal sound- <br />ness and cOrifonnance. If the Water Court is to approve the Rules and Regulations <br />in whole or part, a detennination must of necessity be made as to the validity <br /> <br />,'- <br /> <br />of all assumptions made by the State Engineer. The Water Court in this pro- <br /> <br />ceeding has juriSdiction Over the parties and subject matter of the action and <br /> <br />likewise has juriSdiction Over all water Users within this division who have <br /> <br />i <br />'. <br />!;: <br /> <br />;! <br /> <br />not appeared but who are no doubt subject to the orders of this Court pursuant <br /> <br />to applicable notice provisions of the 1969 act. The approvals or acceptances <br /> <br />as made will no doubt have a significant effect on future administrative <br /> <br />practices. It is therefore imperative to determine if such factual assumption <br /> <br />,'.> <br /> <br />, <br />,. <br />