C150274 Feasibility Study - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

however they were unsuccessful in their early legal efforts to remedy their perceived injury.3 Based on the 2003 compact settlement, the North Fork surface users asked the State Engineer to curtail NHP Basin well pumping in order to protect their surface water rights. The State Engineer forwarded the request to the Colorado Groundwater Commission and the Commission refused to act. In response to the failure to act, on July 1, 2005, the North Fork surface users filed a Petition for Hearing and Appeal of State Engineer Action (Case No. 05-GW-14) which is referred to in this study as the "litigation". The petition sought among other things to re-draw the boundaries of the NHP Basin. The Colorado Groundwater Commission dismissed the Petition on a Motion to Dismiss filed by the NHP Basin groundwater users. The North Fork surface users appealed that decision to District Court. Following a lengthy briefing schedule, the District Court remanded the matter back to the Colorado Groundwater Commission for a factual hearing on the merits of the claims of the North Fork surface users, a copy of which order is attached as Attachment 6. The District Court rejected the arguments that the numerous prior litigations involving the parties prevented the surface users from seeking to de-designate the NHP Basin. Furthermore, the District Court, under some circumstances allowed the North Fork surface users to rely on the compact groundwater model to prove injury. While the NHP Basin groundwater users planned to argue that the model was not capable of proving the injury specified by the court, the State had used the model in its compact accounting to show over 13,000 acre feet of impact to the North Fork from well pumping. The matter was set for trial on June 9, 2008. The week before the June 2008 remand hearing, after nearly a year of negotiations, the YWCA and the surface users agreed to a settlement where the YWCA would lease all senior rights on the North Fork of the Republican River for 2008 and buy the rights for $20 million by the end of the year. The RRWCD agreed to provide $5 million and the YCWA agreed to provide the remainder of the purchase price. 3.2. Analysis of Alternatives Litigate the dispute. 2. Buy out the Water Rights. 3.3. Alternative 1 Both parties to the litigation were confident that they would prevail in the June 2008 hearing before the Groundwater Commission. It should be noted that both sides were s Kuiper v. Lundvall, 187 Colo 40, 529 P2d 1328 (1975); Pioneer Irrigation District v. Danielson, 658 P2d 842 (Colo 1983) 12368\1 \1204400.5 5