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

Home Browse Search

s. The Compact allocates to Colorado 10,000 acre -feet of consumptive use in the North Fork. See Compact, Art. IV. The Compact further recognizes that consumption attributable to the Pioneer Ditch's water right must be included in Colorado's acrd Nebraska's Compact allocations. Sec Compact, Art. V. The Compact Stipulation also allows Colorado to average the Consumptive use in all of the sub - basins in Colorado for the purpose of Compact compliance, STANDARD OF REVIEW 11. The appropriate standard of review of the Plaintiffs' and Defendants' Motion is set forth in C.R.S. § 37 -90-115 and C.R.C.P. SCE. The parties have raised numerous legal and factual issues, some of which, are not necessary for this appeal. The Court does not address issues unnecessary to this appeal.. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS A. The doctrines of issue and claim preclusion do not prevent FWatiffs from challeuglog whether the NUP Basin includes improperly designated ground water. 12. The Commission "Staff ' and certain other Defendants previously took the position that Plaintiffs' Petition before the Commission - was an "unlawful collateral attack on the designation of the NUP Basin and every well pennit that has bem issued in the Basin." See Motion to Dismiss (filed before the Commission) p. 2. 13. Defendants argued that their position was based, in part, on the fact that although Pioneer objected to designation, it did not appeal the Commission's designation of the NHP Basin to the Colorado Supreme Court, citing Lar'rick v. North Kiow a BY= .Management District, 181 Colo. 395, 510 P.2d 323 (1973) and Kuiper v, Lumtvatt. 187 Colo. 40, 529 P.2d 1328. However, it is clear that these two cases do not support the Defendants' argument. In both those cases, the Colorado Supreme Count addressed this issue by stating that neither plaintiff in Larrick or Lundvali objected to the. formation of a designated groundwater basin or appealed the designation to the Colorado Supreme Court. Defendants attempted to expand this issue, arguing that Pioneer was rewired to object and appeal. 14. Further, applyirig Defendants' logic to themselves, the fact that Pioneer's lack of appeal of NHP Basin designation was not raised as an issue or decided in the later case of Pioneer- Irrigation Distrkt v. Danielson, 658 P.2d 842 (Colo. 1983) precludes Defendants from raising the issue at this late date. 15. Finally, the latlguage of C.R.S. § 37 -90 -106 (1) (a) clearly shows that the Defendants' position was not correct. By enacting this section, "the General Assembly has specifically called for the boundaries of designated basins to be revisited." Gallegos v. Colorado Ground Water Corn 'n, 147 P.3d 20, 32 (CO ZO06) 3 See Mollon to DLimfss filed befbre the Commission on or about February 26, 2006. 1 ion 8