WellRegulationInSP (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

South Platte River Task Force Briefing Document Kuiper began rulemaking to curtail wells on graduated basis, i.e., one day per week in 1970, two days in 1971, and so on unless wells were operating in accordance with a court- approved augmentation plan or a plan approved by the State Engineer under C.R.S. § 37- 80-120 (“1969 Act Rules”). The 1969 Act Rules were challenged by a host of protesters that raised numerous objections. The most vocal objectors were well owners that wanted no regulation or curtailment of wells whatsoever. The water court agreed with the well owners and permanently enjoined the operation of the 1969 Act Rules. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the water court, holding: We suggest that there is a slight indication of a feeling upon the part of plaintiffs and on the part of the trial court that changes should not be required in the operation of wells on the Platte River. There must be change, and courts, legislators, the State Engineer and users must recognize it. Kuiper v. Well Owners Conservation Ass’n , 176 Colo. 119, 150, 490 P. 2d. 268, 283 (1971). The General Assembly reacted to the water court dismissal of the 1969 Act Rules by ¼ enacting HB 71-1205. This was the bill that established State Engineer’s rule-making authority for water rules. HB 71-1205 added the following policy statement to what is now C.R.S. § 37-92-501: It is the legislative intent that the operation of this section shall not be used to allow ground water withdrawal which would deprive senior surface rights of the amount of water to which said surface rights would have been entitled in the absence of such ground water withdrawal and that ground water diversions shall not be curtailed nor required to replace water withdrawn, for the benefit of surface right priorities, even though such surface right priorities be senior in priority date, when, assuming the absence of ground water withdrawal by junior priorities, water would not have been available for diversion by such surface right under the priority system. The state engineer may adopt rules and regulations to assist in, but not as a prerequisite to, the performance of the foregoing duties. 1971 Colorado. Sess. Laws, 1330, 1331, ch. 372, § 1 (amending § 148-21-34, C.R.S. (1963 as amended)). Because the 1969 Act Rules had already expired before the Supreme Court resolved the ¼ Kuiper v. Well Owners appeal, the case was not remanded for a new trial, but the State Engineer immediately began work on new rules. 1970s: Development of Augmentation Plans and Temporary Supply Plans The 1969 Act Rules would eventually became the 1974 Amended Rules. After they were ¼ proposed, the rules were challenged by a well owner organization, and a four-week trial took place in 1974. During trial, however, the parties stipulated to a decree incorporating the rules as they had originally been proposed, and the Amended Rules were issued in 1974. The 1974 Amended Rules were also influenced by legislation passed that year. The bill, ¼ SB 74-7, encouraged the promulgation of rules to act as guidelines for the temporary augmentation plan process that had been authorized by statute earlier that same year. SB 74-7 also authorized the State Engineer to grant temporary plans for augmentation where an applicant had filed an application for a plan for augmentation in the water court. Only three years later, the General Asse mbly repealed the experiment with temporary ¼ augmentation plans in 1977 Colo. Sess. Laws 1702, 1704, ch. 483, § 6 (SB 77-4). This repeal was based on concerns raised by the Supreme Court in Kelly Ranch v. Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District , 191 Colo. 65, 550 P.2d 297 (1976) - 3 -