Laserfiche WebLink
Introduction <br />much greater than anticipated. Although a comprehensive review of this information was beyond the <br />scope of this feasibility study, the major events are described here. <br />Because of the large debits accrued by Colorado from 1952 through the mid-1960s, a lawsuit was <br />filed (Texas and New Mexico v. Colorado) in the U.S. Supreme Court in 1966 with Colorado's debt <br />of almost 945,000 acre-feet as the central issue. This action led to a number of events over the next 20 <br />years: <br />1968 The U.S. Supreme Court approved a stipulation between Colorado, Texas, and New Mexico <br />that the pending litigation would be stayed as long as Colorado met its compact delivery <br />obligation each and every year without incurring any further debt of water. Therefore, since <br />1967 Colorado water administrators have treated the compact delivery obligation as the <br />paramount commitment on the rivers and have delivered water for compact purposes instead <br />of allowing unrestricted diversions by Colorado water users. Colorado has succeeded in <br />meeting this delivery obligation, but only at enormous cost in water to pre-compact surface <br />water rights. <br />1970 The Colorado State Engineer's Office stopped issuing new well permits for the non-Closed <br />Basin aquifers and the Closed Basin confined aquifer. <br />1972 The CWCB funded a program from the construction fund to cap and valve flowing small and <br />large capacity stock, domestic, and irrigation wells to conserve the head in the confined <br />aquifer. <br />1975 The Colorado State Engineer proposed rules for compact administration and for <br />administering ground water in the valley. <br />1981 The Colorado State Engineer's Office stopped issuing new well permits for the Closed Basin <br />unconfined aquifer. <br />1983 After a lengthy trial initiated in 1979 on the proposed rules, the Colorado Supreme Court <br />largely approved the proposed rules for compact administration, but disapproved the rules for <br />curtailing ground water use on the grounds that the State Engineer had improperly concluded <br />that he was not permitted to consider a requirement that senior priority surface water users <br />drill wells as a means of diversion prior to the curtailment of the junior priority ground water <br />rights. The Colorado Supreme Court remanded the proposed rules back to the State Engineer <br />for further consideration. <br />1985 Allocation of the yield of the Closed Basin Project by agreement of the San Luis Valley water <br />users resolved the issue of regulating then-existing levels of ground water use that affected <br />surface flows of the Rio Grande and the Conejos River. <br />1985 The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed with prejudice the Texas and New Mexico v. Colorado <br />lawsuit following the spill of Rio Grande Project storage water from Elephant Butte pursuant <br />to the terms of the Rio Grande Compact. <br />In light of the allocation of the yield of the Closed Basin Project by San Luis Valley Water Users, the <br />State Engineer's Office did not find it necessary to adopt new rules and regulations to curtail existing <br />levels of ground water use. Accordingly, the practice of curtailing surface water rights and <br />supplementing the deliveries with Closed Basin Project water remains the cornerstone of Colorado's <br />a454/report/fmaUintro.doc 07/2&~OS 1-7 <br />