BOARD00563

• Board Meeting Date: 3/22/2005
• Description: Report of the Attorney General
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

'I

.,

but the opposer claimed numerous "conflicts." The most immediate task is to pull together .
the immense number of documents to ensure our ability to disclose them. Our 26al
disclosures are due on April 1,2005.

13. Hi!!:h Plains Appeal. re!!:ardin!!: the anti-speculation doctrine and three applications
to Chan!!:e Fort Lvon Canal water ri!!:hts to over 50 uses in 28 counties. (Case Nos.
02CW183. 03CW28 and 03CW68 :

The CWCB and State and Division Engineers filed their Answer Brief in this case on
March 4, 2005 asking the Colorado Supreme Court to uphold the Division 2 water court's
order that the three High Plains change applications are barred by the anti-speculation
doctrine.

The Answer Brief first explains that the anti-speculation doctrine is an essential part of
the doctrine of beneficial use that must be enforced across the board. If water users are able
to get around the rule simply by filing a change application, the anti-speculation doctrine will
fail. The brief then summarizes the undisputed evidence that the High Plains applications are
speculative: the applicants do not plan to use the water themselves, do not have a contract
with an end user, and do not have a plan for a changed use. They simply want to increase the
marketability of their water rights. Next, the brief explains that speculation is a threshold
issue that required dismissal of the applications prior to reaching the question of injury.
Finally, the brief addresses the applicants' policy arguments, explaining that maximum .
utilization is served by upholding the rule that speculation is not a beneficial use.

Three other answer briefs were filed. The Applicants' Reply briefs are due by March 21,
2005. Oral argument is expected to be set for this surnmer.

14. Moltz application. Chaffee Countv. 02CW73

At the September Board meeting the Board approved a request to inundate the Board's
Trout Creek instream water right, with riIitigation. Since that time Moltz has filed a new
application, and the trial scheduled for October, 2004 was vacated because the new
application is so closely related to the pending case. CWCB Staff reached an agreement in
principle with Moltz. However we have been and are still waiting for a proposed decree and
stipulation from Moltz's attorney.

15. Ground Water Ri!!:ht for Great Sand Dunes National Park. 2004 CW 35

On December 30, 2004, the United States filed a claim for ground water in both the
confined and unconfined aquifers underlying the new Great Sand Dunes National Park
(GSDNP), pursuant to the requirements in the GSDNP statute. The priority date claimed is
November 22, 2000. The quantity c1airned is all unappropriated ground water within the
ground water systern underlying the Park necessary to rnaintain the historical range and .
average of ground water levels under the Park. This amount will vary both seasonally and
from year to year. The claim recognizes that existing water rights affect the ground water

6