Laserfiche WebLink
65. If the Plaintiffs establish there is more than a de miaainmis tributary connection and that <br />groundwater pumping in the NHP Basin is resulting in injury to the Plaintiffs' vested water <br />tights, the Conn nission must redraw the boundaries of the NHP Basin consistent therewith. See <br />Gallegos, 147 P.3d at 31. <br />X Defendants are not entitled to a legal presumption that favors preserving the status <br />quo. <br />66. The Defendants have incorrectly argued that they are entitled to a legal presumption <br />favoring the status quo. Such a presumption would be contrary to C.R.S. § 37 -90 -106 (1) (a,) and <br />Colorado case law. <br />L. For the Reasons stated above, the conclusions, fJn$ings and data of the RRCA, <br />Model and the rulings of the Special Master in the Compact Litigation constitute new <br />evidence for the purposes of C.R.S. § 37 -90 -106 (1) (a) as a matter of law. <br />IN'f. The Compact does not require Colorado to modify state water administration. <br />67. Colcrraalo's water administration officials `°eats and should enforce compact delivery <br />requirements with regard to Colorado water rights, adhering to the terms of the compact and <br />consistent, insofar as possible, with Colorado constitutional and statutory provisions for priority <br />administration." See Simpson v. Highland Irrigation Co., 917 P.2d 1242, 1248 (Colo. 1996.) <br />The Compact and the Compact Stipulation do not include any provision to the wntrary. <br />68. fTowever, a state may exeate and protect vested water rights to water use only as to the <br />state's apportioned sham of the interstate stream. See Hinder"Ilder v. La Plata River & Cherry <br />Creek Ditch Co., 101 Colo. 73, 70 P.2d 849 (1937), <br />N. At this tame, it is not necessary for Commissioners Grant H. Bledsoe and Dennis W. <br />Coryeli to recuse themselves from the underlying proceedings and disqualified from any <br />future proceedings in this matter because their ownership of wells in the NHP Basin and <br />their positions as board members of groundwater management districts objecting to the <br />,Petition before the Commission. <br />69. Plaintiffs filed a inotion before the Oxia fission to recuse Comrnissiorxers Grant H. <br />BNdsce and Dennis W. Coryell based on the position that these Commuissiorxers own wells in the <br />NHP Basin and are board members of defendant Plains and Sand Hills OToUnd Water <br />Management Districts, respectively, and, therefore have a personal, direct interest in the outcome <br />of this case which, at least, creates the appearance of impropriety. Plaintiffs contend that if they <br />are successful in this case, the outcome may include the wells owned by these. Commissioners. <br />70. Defendant Management Districts argue that Plaintiffs have not established that a conflict <br />of interest, personal bias or prejudice or the appearance of impropriety exists in this matter. <br />Defendants argue that Plaintiff's have not identified any specific well in the NIP Basin that is <br />I 1071 16 <br />