Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2 <br /> <br />5. Great Sand Dunes National Park And Preserve <br />On the eve of trial, opposers Cotton Creek Circle agreed to a proposed decree granting <br />underground water rights to the United States Park Service to protect and preserve the values for <br />which the Park was set aside. Essentially, that water right establishes a maximum water table <br />elevation in the unconfined aquifer for the Park's water right. If the water table is above those <br />elevations, junior water rights are permitted to divert and affect the water table. The supporters <br />of the claim, including the State Engineer and CWCB put on a three day prima facie case to <br />provide evidence to support the right as contained in the proposed decree. At the close of the <br />hearing on August 4, judge Kuenhold signed the decree. <br />WATER RIGHTS MATTER <br />6. North Sterling V. Engineers--Case No. 08SA29, Supreme Court <br />This is an appeal from a case in Water Division No. 1 involving the authority of the Engineers to <br />administer North Sterling Reservoir under a "seasonal year" beginning on November 1 and <br />ending on October 31 each year. Under this administration, once North Sterling has received the <br />full amount under each of its storage rights, it is not able to call for water (and maybe called out <br />by junior rights) prior to November 1. North Sterling seeks instead to be administered under <br />what it terms "low-point administration." Under this system, it would pick a date each year <br />when it could begin to call for water under its storage rights. The trial court rejected North <br />Sterling's claims for takings and violation of due process prior to trial, and found in favor of the <br />Engineers after the trial. North Sterling has appealed the lower court's rulings to the Supreme • <br />Court on a number of grounds. The Engineers, along with a number of other water users <br />supporting their position, filed their answer brief in early August. The reply brief will be filed in <br />early September. <br />7. Colorado Mountain Properties, 07CW 123 In Div. 1 <br />Colorado Mountain Properties is currently set for a four day trial starting on December 15. <br />Applicant proposes to decree water rights for two infiltration galleries and a ditch on Cub Creek, <br />and a plan for augmentation for those rights to serve a 100 house development called the <br />Cragmont Subdivision. The applicant's application for a SWSP was denied because it was a <br />request for a water supply for a proposed subdivision which the DWR would not approve under <br />their policy on SWSPs. Fifteen houses in this subdivision have already been built and rely on <br />solely on trucked water. <br />The CWCB is concerned about how the proposed exchange may impact the decreed instream <br />flow right and is investigating how to best resolve that issue, and also has some concerns about <br />use estimates and administration issues. The CWCB and one other opposer timely filed an <br />expert disclosure on August 18, 2008. The CWCB anticipates the applicant will circulate a <br />revised proposed decree in the near future. The deadline for filing Rule 56 motions is September <br />16. <br />• <br />