BOARD01411 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

9 Page 8 12. Sportsman's Ranch ("SPCUP") South Park conjunctive Use Project, 96CW14, Division 1. . Issue: The SPCUP is a complex proposal foria so-called conjunctive use project in South Park. Applicant plans to pump ground water to create; a void in the aquifer, then divert surface water into the aquifer for storage and later withdrawal. The City of Aurora has contracted with the Applicant for use of the withdrawn water. Decision: Applicant completed Its case in chief on February 23, 2001. Objedors have made a motion to dismiss that is being briefed now and will.be orally argued in Fairplay on April 30, May 1 and May 2, 2001. i Discussion: The Board has three instream flow water right appropriations on Michigan Creek, Jefferson Creek. and Tarryall Creek. that could be affected by the Applicant's proposal. The State Engineer and the Division of Wildlife are also objectors in this case. The Project proposes the removal of 110,000 acre-feet from the Upper and, Lower South Park aquifers In order to make sufficient storage space available to allow wat~ from the recharge facilities to infiltrate into the South Park aquifers. The Project includes a ~urface water colIection system that intercepts a number of tributaries to the South Platte River. South Park Sportsmen's Ranch proposes to divert water from these sources to recharge ponds and ditches located on the Applicant's ranch and BLM property located near th~ ranch. The Applicant claims a storage capacity of 140.000 acre-feet (70,000 acre-feet in th~ Upper South Park Aquifer and 70,000 acre- feet in the Lower South Park Aquifer). The Applicant then proposes to withdraw water from the . underground storage system through 47 wells for ultimate delivery to Aurora. 13. Unites States v. Elephant Butte Irrie:ation Di$trlct, et aL , ; Issue: Should the complaint be dismissed b~ the federal district court on grounds of lack of jurisdiction. resfudicata. or abstention? . Decision: Pending before the 10th Circuit. ; i Discussion: In 1997, the United States filed a quiet titie action in New Mexico federal district court to water rights for the Rio Grande Project and its storage facilities, including Elephant Butte Reservoir, The Rio Grande Project is an irriS\ltion project with lands in New Mexico and Texas. Elephant Butte Reservoir is the Iynchpin to Colorado's obligations and entitlements under the Rio Grande Compact. In any year that Elephant Butte spills usable water, Colorado does 110t have to make deliveries of water to the state line, which means that water rights need llot be curtailed in that year for Compact deliveries. i Any legal detenninations and negotiated discussions regarding the ownership, operation and ~gement of the reservoir and its water rights are critical to Colorado. Texas also filed a miltlon to intervene. After two years. negotiations were unsuccessful.! The court dismissed the United States' claim. The court tound that both the federal court l\lld the state court had jurisdiction over the .