Laserfiche WebLink
Designated Ground Water Basin ( "NHP Basin") which included the entire drainage of the North <br />Fork. The NHP Basin encompasses the groundwater found in the Ogallala Aquifer, F oneer v. <br />.Dantel,son 658 P.2d at 844. Pioneer objected to NHP Basin designation. <br />4. In the 1974's, pioneer grew increasingly concerned about the decliiaing surface flow of <br />the North Pork. Pioneer believed that groundwater pumping was affecting the surface <br />manifestation of the republican River's water flow by depleting the water table in the area. <br />Pioneer v. Danielson 658 P.2d at 844. Those saute concerns manifest in this appeal. <br />5. PJaintifl's initiated this matter after the conclusion of the Compact litigation of Kansas v. <br />Nebraska and Colorado ( "Compact Litigation "). See Kansas Y. Nebraska and Colorado, 538 <br />U.S. 720 (2003) and 540 U.S. 964 (2003). The Compact Litigation determined that groundwater <br />in the Republican River Basin ( "River Basin ") was hydrologically connected to swf"ace streams, <br />As a result of the Compact Litigation, the Republican River Compact Administration C'RRCA!'), <br />the compacting states and f'eder'al government stipulated to and developed a groundwater model <br />( "RRCA Model" or "Compact Model') to determine stream depletions caused by well pumping <br />for purposes of Compact accounting. <br />6. Based, in part, on the Compact Litigation and RR,CA Model, Plaintiffs requested the <br />State Engineer to curtail well pumping in the NHP Basin to prevent injury to senior surface <br />rights. The State Engineer forwarded Plaintiffs' request to the Commission. When the <br />Commission did not act, Plairxtiffs filed with the Commission a Petition for Hearing and ,Appeal <br />of State Engineer Action Causing Tnjuty ("Petition "). The Petitions included a request that the <br />Commission notice a heating to redraw the boundaries of the NHP Bashi pursuant to C,R3, §37- <br />90 - 106. The Commission dismissed the Petition after a hearing on a motion to dismiss. As a <br />result, the Commission has h eard no factual evidence on the Petition. This appeal followed, <br />7. Plaintiffs and Defendants have filed cross -mo ioris for summary judgment. <br />8. Plaintiffs have asked the Court to make the following detenninations as a matter of law: <br />a, The creation of a designated groundwater basin does not establish conclusively <br />that all ground water in the basin is designated ground water. Defendants do not object to this <br />determina.tioa as a matter of law. <br />b, Designated ground crater cannot, as a matter of law, impact surface flows greater <br />than a de m.inimis amount and any ground water which has more than a de mfnimty impact on <br />surface waters cannot properly be classified as designated ground water. The Defendants do not <br />object to this determination as a matter of law; provided the Court also determines that the <br />"meaning of de mfnim�s and the effect of previous Colorado Supreme Court decisions <br />concerning the character of the groundwater in the NHP Basin have not been determined. "' <br />' The requirements of C.R.S. § 37 -90 -106 trump case law. <br />110 7L <br />