Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Page 6 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />9. Union Park. Colorado Supreme Court <br /> <br />Issue: Did the water court correctly determine the amount of water available,for <br />appropriation of water rights for the Union Park Reservoir Project? <br /> <br />Decision: <br /> <br />Pending <br /> <br />Discussion: This case was argued before the Colorado Supreme Court on March 1,2000. <br />Steve Sims presented the argument on behalf of the State and the other objectors. Weare <br />still awaiting the decision. <br /> <br />10. Soortsman's Ranch l"SPCUP") 'South Park {::oninnctive Use Proiect.96CW14. <br />Division <br /> <br />Issue: The SPCUP isa complex pmposal fora so-called conjunctive use project. The <br />Applicant in Case No. 96CWI4 claims a storage right in the-underground South Park aquifers. <br />This storage right would be located in an underground aquifer that is approximately 112 square <br />miles in area, and underneath lands not owned by the Applicant. The Colorado- State Land Board <br />is one of the overlying landowners, as is the DOW. Applicant plans to pump ground water to <br />create a void in the aquifer, then divert surface water from Michigan and Jefferson Creeks, <br />tributaries of Tarryall Creek, for intmduction into the aquifer for storage and fater withdrawal. <br />. The City of Aurora has contracted with the Applicant for use of the withdrawn water. <br /> <br />Decision: An 8-week trial commenced in FlIirplay 11ft Monday, July Hl, with numerous <br />objectors including the Board, the- State Engineer, and the- Division of Wildlife. It is likely <br />that the trilj:! will not be completed witbin the 8 weeks llIIotted, and it is unclear when "the <br />trial could continue, based on the-water judge's schedule. Steve Sims and Jennifer Gimbel <br />are leading the trial team for the state and its agencies. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Discussion: The -Board has three instrearn flow water right appropriations on Michigan Creek, <br />Jefferson Creek, and TarryallCreek, that could be affected by the Applicant's proposal. The <br />State Engineer and the Division of Wildlife- are alsO' objectors in this case, The proposed South <br />Park Conjunctive Use Project facilities are located in South Park near the village of Jefferson, <br />Colorado in Water Division No.1. All of the potentially affected water rights are in the South <br />Platte River drainage, The Project pmposes the removal of 110,000 acre-feet from the Upper <br />and Lower South Park aquifers. The removal of this water would make sufficient storage space <br />available to llHow water from the recharge facilities to infiltrate into the South Park aquifers. <br />The Project includes a surface water collection system that intercepts a number O'ftributariestO' <br />the South Platte River. South Park Sportsmen's Ranch proposes to divert water from these <br />sources to-recharge ponds and ditches located on the Applicant's ranch and BLM.property <br />located near the ranch. The Applicant claims a storage capacity of 140,000 acre-feet (70,000 <br />acre-feet in the Upper South Park Aquifer and 70;000 acre-feet in the Lower South Park <br />Aquifer). The Applicant then proposes to withdraw water from the underground storage system <br />through 47 wells for ultimate delivery to Aurora: A number of preliminary motions were-fIled <br />by various objectors, including the state agencies, objecting to the Applicant's proposal to <br />