Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />the Ranch. The Applicant proposes to store all of this water in the Upper and Lower South Park <br />Aquifers. The Applicant proposes to rely on the Elkhorn Thrust Fault, which is located on the <br />eastern boundary of the Project, to serve as a dam. The underground reservoir is approximately <br />112 square miles, and located underneath the property of several hundred landowners. The <br />Applicant claims a storage capacity of 140,000 acre-feet (70,000 acre-feet in the Upper South <br />Park Aquifer and 70,000 acre-feet in the Lower South Park Aquifer). The Applicant then <br />proposes to withdraw water from the underground storage system through 47 wells for ultimate <br />delivery to Aurora. The Applicant's proposed decree identifies four potential augmentation <br />sources: I) nontributary Laramie-Fox Hills ground water; 2) water stored, in priority, in the <br />underground storage reservoir or in the recharge reservoirs; 3) credits available from <br />unconsumed withdrawals diverted from the augmented rights; and 4) direct pumping from the <br />South Park aquifer wells. The Board has three instream flow water right appropriations that <br />could be affected by these application. The instream flow appropriations are on Michigan Creek, <br />Jefferson Creek, and T arryall Creek. <br /> <br />The Applicant's proposed decree separates the application into the following four <br />different claims for relief: I) conditional underground water rights including conditional <br />appropriative rights of exchange for wells; 2) conditional underground water storage rights <br />including conditional appropriative rights of exchange; 3) absolute and conditional surface <br />recharge and collection systems including conditional appropriative rights of exchange for South <br />Park Fonnation surface recharge system; and 4) plan for augmentation including change of water <br />rights and conditional appropriative rights of exchange. <br /> <br />CURRENT STATUS <br /> <br />The 96CW13 case went before the Colorado Supreme Court for resolution of two <br />questions: <br />I) Did the Water Court correctly find that the provisions of Senate Bill 5 do not apply to <br />water in the Laramie-Fox Hills Aquifer where it exists outside of the Denver Basin? <br />2) Did the Water Court err when it stated that 100% of withdrawals must be replaced? <br />The Supreme Court ruled that the Water Court correctly held that the Senate Bill 5 provisions do <br />not apply to water found in the Laramie-Fox Hills Aquifer where it exists outside of the Denver <br />Basin, but the Supreme Court reversed the Water Court's holding to the extent that it required <br />100% of withdrawals to be replaced. Only 100% of out-of-priority depletions must be replaced. <br />This was the position for which the State advocated. It is unclear how the Applicant will proceed <br />with Case No. 96CW13. <br /> <br />Case No. 96CWI4 is set for an eight week trial in Fairplay, Colorado. The trial is set to <br />begin on July 10, 2000. The Applicant claims a storage right in the underground South Park <br />aquifers. This storage right would be located in an underground aquifer that is approximately <br />112 square miles in area, and underneath lands not owned by the Applicant. Several of the <br />objectors have made motions for summary judgment on the basis that the Applicant cannot <br />impound, possess or control the water placed in the aquifer (first motion), and on the grounds <br />that some of the claimed water is not "stored by other than natural means" (second motion). The <br />