BOARD01980

• Board Meeting Date: 2/5/1982
• Description: CWCB Meeting
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

The two issues in these cases concern the relationship
between the surface rights of the Water Conservation Board and
the groundwaters of the Ogallala Formation in the Northern High
Plains designated groundwater basin and whether the Board should
stipulate to any unspecified future water management plans of the
objectors. The Central Yuma County Groundwater Management
District and the pioneer Irrigation District are presently in a
lawsuit over the relationship between the Ogallala wells and
surface flows of the Republican River basin. The Pioneer
Irrigation District is claiming that its surface diversions are
being injured by the pumping of the Ogallala wells.

The pioneer Irrigation District wants the Board to stipulate
that the Board will not object to any change or alternate points
of diversions that the District may wish to pursue in the
future. Subordinating the Board's instream flow rights to any
unspecified future plans by the District was not considered by
the staff to provide adequate protection for the Board's in-
stream flow rights.

The Central Yuma County Groundwater Management District has
asked the Board to stipulate that the Board will not use its
instream flow decrees to' curtail pumping of groundwater wells in
the designated basin and that the Board will subordinate its
filings to ~ny water management plan the District may develop in
the future. Since by statutory definition "designated
ground'vater" is groundwater which would not be available to and
required for the fulfillment of surface rights, the Board's
instreaffi flow rights cannot injure any groundwater wells in a
designated groundwater basin. If well pumping does affect
surface flows, the wells by statute should not be in a designated
groundwater basin and the wells would be subject to
administration by the State Engineer within the priority sytem.
However, this issue should be decided in the lawsuit between the
Central Yuma Groundwater Management District and the pioneer
Irrigation District.

Stipulation to any unspecified future plans of the
Groundwater Management District would not adequately protect the
Board's instream flow rights.

The Attorney General's defense of the Board's instream flow
rights will rest on the following factors:

1. There is a valuable fishery resource in the N. Fork
Republican River and Chief Creek as substantiated by
DOW and the C~CB investigations.

2. Statutorily, the surface flow rights of the CWCB cannot
injure pumping from the designated groundwater basin.

3. Stipulating to any unspecified future water management
plans will not protect the Board's instream flow
rights.

-2-