Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Page 7 <br /> <br />S. 2508, which passed the Senate by an 85-5 vote on October 25th. The legislation passed the <br />House as a rider to an appropriations bill. This was a real team effort on Colorado's part. The <br />Administration included $12 million for ALP construction in the FY 02 budget. Our <br />delegation supports a figure of $21.6 million, which our office has supported. At this point, <br />the energy and water appropriations subcommittees in both houses have recommended $16 <br />million. <br /> <br />9. Golden Boat Chute litigation, 98CW448, Division 1. <br /> <br />Issue: <br /> <br />Whether the CWCB should appeal the court's decision in this case. <br /> <br />Decision: <br /> <br />The Notice of Appeal is due July 30, 2001. <br /> <br />Discussion: The Water Court granted Golden its entire requested appropriation for <br />up to 1000 cfs, including nighttime and winter uses. The Board will discuss the potential <br />issues for appeal during the Executive Session and make a determination as to whether <br />to appeal, and if so, which issues to appeal. <br /> <br />10. Sportsman's Ranch ("SPCUP") South Park Conjunctive Use Project, 96CW14, <br />Division 1. <br /> <br />Issue: The SPCUP is a complex proposal for a so-called conjunctive use project in South <br />Park. Applicant plans to pump ground water to create a void in the aquifer, then divert surface <br />water into the aquifer for storage and later withdrawal. The City of Aurora has contracted with <br />the Applicant for use of the withdrawn water. <br /> <br />Decision: Applicant completed its case in chief on February 23,2001. Objectors argued <br />motions to dismiss in Fairplay on April 30, May I and May 2, 2001. On June 1,2001, the <br />Water Court issued an Order Dismissing Application, pursuant to C.R.C.P. 41(b)(I). In a <br />nutshell, the Court found that the groundwater model offered by Applicant was unreliable, <br />and therefore the Applicant could not meet its initial burden. The Court also took issue <br />with aspects of Applicant's surface water modeling. Upon motion of Applicant and <br />Objectors, the Court has granted until August 17, 2001 for filing of post-trial motions. <br /> <br />Discussion: The Board has three instream flow water right appropriations on Michigan Creek, <br />Jefferson Creek, and Tarryall Creek, 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 Project proposes <br />the removal of 110,000 acre-feet from the Upper and Lower South Park aquifers in order to <br />make sufficient storage space available to allow water from the recharge facilities to infiltrate <br />into the South Park aquifers. The Project includes a. surface water collection system that <br />intercepts a number of tributaries to the South Platte River. South Park Sportsmen's Ranch <br />proposes to divert water from these sources to recharge ponds and ditches located on the <br />Applicant's ranch and BLM property located near the ranch. The Applicant claims a storage <br />capacity of 140,000 acre-feet (70,000 acre-feet in the Upper South Park Aquifer and 70,000 acre- <br />