Order Granting Summary Judgement Motions in Part and Denying Summary Motions in Part

Home Browse Search

C. Cxrouadwater Pumping that impacts a stream in less than 100 years, that pumping has per se more tban a de »afnarms impact on surface flows. d. The Commission is statutorily required to redraw the boundaries of any designated ground water basin when future conditions and factual data reveaI that the basin includes ground water that does not properly fall within the definition of designated ground water. The Defendants do not object to this determination as a matter of law; Provided the Court also deterlxaines that the "Commission's detennination trust be based on evidence not previously presented to it and what constitutes `new evidence' and the effect of previous Colorado Supreme Court decisions concerning the character of the ground water in the NHP Basin have not bey determined." e. Once the Comtmission redraws the boundaries of a basin to exclude improperly designated ground water, said ground water becomes subject to exclusive jurisdiction under the Water Rights Determination and Administration Act of 1969 (the "1969 Act ") and must be administered in priority by the Mate and Division Engineer. Defendants do not object to this determination as a matter of law, f. The doctrines of issue and claim preclusion do not prevent Plaintiffs from challenging whether the NHP Basin includes improperly designated groundwater. The Defendants do not object to this determination as a matter of law; provided, the Court also determines that "whether these PIaintiffs are precluded by previous Colorado Supreme Court decisions concerning the degree of connection between their surface water rights and ground water in the NHP Basin has not been determined. " The Commission is bound by the Compact and results of the Compact litigation, including the rulings of the United States Supreme Court, Coinpact Stipulation and Compact Model, demonstrating that ground water in the NH? Basin is hydrologically connected to and depleting surface streams and is subject to administration under the Compact. The Commission is thus required to modify the NHP Basin boundaries to exclude Bound water that the Compact Model shows is or will be subject to the Compact as a result of depletions to surface streams including the North Fork, so that the excluded ground water will thereafter be administered in priority to meet the Compact and protect senior water rights g. The "itiformation" in the Compact and related Compact Litigation, ruIings, Compact Stipulation and Compact Model satisfies Plaintiffs' burden of proving thew is ground water in the NHP Basin, the pumping of which is having more than a de minims impact on surface flows in the North Fork. Further, as a result, the Commission is required, as a. matter of law, to modify the NHP Basin boundaries pursuarit to C.R.S.§ 37 -94 -106 (I) (a) to exclude ground water that the ]Model shows is or will depIde the North Fork within 104 years so that the excluded ground water will thoreafler be administered in priority to protect senior surface rights. Again, C.R.S. § 37 -90 -106 Warnps previous case law. 11071 4