Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. ~ ^ ~ <br /> <br />C-5 <br /> <br />r- <br />-,' <br /> <br />~ of "most senior commitment" is correct. The Court concludes that such <br />Q <br /> <br />~ assumption is ;n error. The Rio Grande River Compact as set forth ;n C.R.S. <br /> <br />1973, 37-66-101 et seq. makes no such provision and there is no case law to <br />support such an assumption. The doctrine of equitable apportionment as <br />set forth in Hinderlider v. La Plata River and Cherry Creek Ditch Co., 304 <br />u. S. 92 (1938) likewise makes no such pronouncement. There is no question <br />but what the State of Colorado has a responsibility to deliver certain <br />quantities of water to the States of New Mexico and Texas as provided by the <br />compact but such deliveries are not the most senior commitments. Such deliv- <br />eries have equal priority but do not have the status of senior commitment. <br />The State Engineer in his brief states it is a question of sematics and <br />was only included as an attempt to explain to the state's citizens the importance <br />of compact fulfillment but the Court cannot approve or acquiese in such <br /> <br />erroneous assumption of fact. <br /> <br />The protests raise practically every conceivable legal objection <br />which this Court could reasonable perceive as being capable of contest. <br />Bas-ically, the Proposed Rules and Regulations are divided into three parts with <br />Part I consisting of definitions, Part II consisting of regulations for sur- <br />face water administration and Part III consisting of rules and regulations <br /> <br />for underground water administration. ,As a whole, there is only a slight <br /> <br />difference between the Proposed Rules and Regulations as contrasted to pre- <br /> <br />vious operating critera as annually supplied to the Court by the State Engineer <br />for informational purposes. <br />Even though the jurisdiction of the Water Court has been placed in issue <br />by numerious protests, the protestants have not seriously pursued this point <br />and there is no question but what the Water Court has jurisdiction over rules <br />and regulations as are authorized and legally promulgated pursuant to the <br />provisions of C.R.S. 1973, 37-92-501. See Kuiper vs. Well Owners Conservation <br />