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

Home Browse Search

h. Plaintiffs have demonstrated injury from depletions to surface Mows in the Nortb Fork both by legal Presumption (where surface water is over- appropriated, as it is in the North Fork, ground water depletions caused by well pumping are presumed to inljure senior appropriators) and by diversion records for the Pioneer Ditch. i. Pursuant t4 C.R.S. § 37- 90106 (3), the State Engineer must prepare a map showing the altered boundaries of the NHP Basin consistent with the Compact Model and rulings of this Court and the f ommissiou must, thereafter, notice and Bold a hearing on the alteration of the NHP Basin boundaries consistent with the Compact Model and dings of this Court. j. Commissioners Grant H. Bledsoe and Dennis W. Coryell were required to recuse themselves froin the underlying proceedings and disqualified from any future proceeedings given their ownership of wells in the NHP Basin and their positions as board members of groundwater management districts objecting to the Petition. k. The Commission exceeded its statutory [authorization] authority in requiring Plaintiffs to pay for publication costs associated with the Petition and the Commission is ordered to immediately return the publication costs to Plaintiffs with statutory interest. 9. Defendants Dave requested that the Court determine the following as a matter of law: a. Injury to water rights in Colorado is a matter of fact, not of law and similarly, the de mininrtr standard is a matter of fact. There are disputes of fact regarding injury to Plaintiff's' water rights. Injury determinations must be based on more than diversion records. b. Plaintiffs misperceive the law on interstate compacts and what it requires the Commission to do in this instance. c. The Compact Settlement validates existing Colorado administration of ground watet and does not require un- designation of any portion of the NHP Basin. d. In the event that the Compact settlement documents are not is themselves sufficient to reject Plaintiffs' Compact argument as a matter of law, this argument raises disputed issues of fact wbieh prevent the resolution of this issue under [C.R.C,P.] Rule 56. C. Defendants also request that the Court find that Commissioners BIedsoe and Coryell need not recuse from this inatter acid that the Plaintiffs axe required to pay publication costs. UNDISPUTED FACE'S 10. Although the Defendants, at tinges, state an opposition to certain uridisputed facts the Plaintiffs' propose on the grounds that a document cited by the Plaintiffs' "may be different than the document itself," the Defendants did not identify any difference. Accordingly, the follo yt ing facts are uadisputed for purposes of these motions: 11071 5