C150150 Market Report - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . effective date of the termination may utilize the water in the following irrigation season. Any water not so used by the following November 1 will become Conservation Storage. C. Legal Challenges to the 1980 Operating Plan The 1980 Operating Plan has been the subject of several legal challenges. In Kansas v. Colorado, No. 105 original, United States Supreme Court, the State of Kansas argued that the 1980 Operating Plan constituted an administrative rewriting of Article V of the Compact and was "ultra vires and legally void ab initio." In the liability phase of that trial, however, Kansas did not seek to have the plan invalidated, and no such claim was made in its pleadings. The State of Colorado argued that Kansas obtained substantial benefIts from the 1980 Operating Plan; that these benefits increased usable state-line flows and offset any impact of wells downstream from the Buffalo Canal after 1965; and that acceptance of the benefits by Kansas should bar any claim against Colorado related to post -Compact well development in Colorado or the Winter Water Storage Program since 1980. In his ruling of July 1994, the Special Master in Kansas v. Colorado concluded that the benefIts to Kansas and Colorado from the 1980 Operating Plan were separately bargained for. He ruled that the benefits received by Kansas under the plan should not be offset against Compact violations and should not be a bar to any of the Kansas claims. The Special Master also held that so long as the 1980 Operating Plan is not terminated or determined to be invalid, it is controlling on the releases from John Martin Reservoir. Colorado took exception to the Special Master's Ruling that increases in usable state-line flows resulting from the 1980 Operating Plan were separately bargained for and, therefore, should not offset depletions caused by post-Compact well pumping in Colorado. On May 15, 1995, in Kansas v. Colorado, 115 S.Ct. 1733 (1995), the U.S. Supreme Court denied the exceptions to the Special Master's ruling fIled by both Kansas and Colorado, and affirmed the July 1994 Report of the Special Master. The court remanded the case to the Special Master to proceed with the remedy phase of the trial. As of the date of this report, the 1980 Operating Plan remains in effect. Neither the State of Colorado nor the State of Kansas has expressed an intent to terminate the plan. On March 11, 1997, the Administration created a so-called "Offset Account" in John Martin Reservoir (see below). That Resolution assumes the continued existence of the 1980 Operating Plan and makes provision for the coordinated use of water in accounts created by the 1980 Operating Plan and the "Offset Account." In Colorado state court, Highland Irrigation Company and the Nine Mile Ditch Company (collectively "Highland and Nine Mile") challenged the State Engineer's right to administer water rights above John Martin Dam on the basis of the 1980 Operating Plan. In April of 1993, acting on a call by three senior water users in Water District No. 67, the Division Engineer ordered Highland and Nine Mile to curtail diversions under their junior priorities. Highland and Nine Mile refused to comply with the State Engineer's orders, and he sued to enforce the orders. Highland and Nine Mile asserted that the 1980 Operating Plan was not a lawful basis for the State Engineer's curtailment order because the plan was in Page 14 of 66