Training, Hydrology. ect State Engineer's Office Forum

Home Browse Search

Jones Ditch's lawful historic use. The Supreme Court affirmed the water court's determination that the 1882 decree adjudicated an absolute water right that is impliedly limited to the amount of water necessary to irrigate the acreage originally irrigated by the appropriator in 1882. The Court rejected Central's argument that the Opposers were barred under the laches doctrine from challenging the lawful historic use of the Jones Ditch Water Right. The Court also reversed the water court's decision that because a prior 1992 case changing a portion of the Jones Ditch Water Right relied on a parcel -by- parcel analysis of historic consumptive use, the doctrine of claim preclusion prevented the water court from conducting a ditch -wide analysis of consumptive use under the Jones Ditch. Under the parcel -by- parcel analysis, the water court had awarded Central 66.65 acre -feet of annual consumptive use for the 37 acres owned by Central. However, preliminary evidence of a ditch -wide analysis had indicated that only 361 acre feet of consumptive use was available under all of Central's shares in the Jones Ditch Company and Central had already been awarded 401 acre feet under its previously changed shares. Thus, it appeared that no consumptive use may remain for Central's remaining 77 shares in the present change case. The Supreme Court reversed the water court's award of 66.65 acre -feet because the water court failed to consider the results of a ditch -wide analysis. Because the water court had previously indicated that additional fact - finding was necessary before it could conduct a ditch -wide analysis, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the water court for further proceedings as to whether Central should be awarded any additional consumptive use credit. 3) Gallegos v. Colorado Ground Water Commission, 147 P.3d 20 (Colo. 2006), November 6, 2006. In this case the Supreme Court clarified the jurisdiction of the Colorado Ground Water Commission with respect to surface water rights within a designated ground water basin. Appellants, the Gallegos family, brought an action before the Commission claiming that their senior surface water rights were being injured by certain water diversions and well pumping within the Basin. The Commission held that the Gallegos were barred by res judicata from calling out designated basin wells, because the Gallegos family or its predecessors -in- interest had the opportunity during the designation hearings to object to the designation of the Basin. The Gallegos appealed to the District Court. The District Court held that the the Gallegos' claims were not barred by res judicata. The District Court held that the Commission has jurisdiction over surface water rights when designated ground water impacts such rights. The District Court held that in such circumstances, the Commission must administer junior designated ground water wells for the benefit of senior surface water rights in accordance with the Groundwater Management Act and the modified prior appropriation system. The Supreme Court reversed the District Court's decision in part. The Supreme Court held that the Groundwater Commission has limited jurisdiction over surface water rights within a designated groundwater basin, only for the purpose of altering the boundaries of a designated ground water basin. A surface water rights holder who believes that pumping within a designated ground water basin is causing injury to those surface rights has the burden of proving to the Commission that the ground water alleged 2