|
<br />may be "of a severity seen only once every 200 years", The city has indicated that strict water rationing will
<br />be considered ifthese voluntary efforts prove ineffective,
<br />
<br />In 1990, the City donated many senior water rights to the CWCB to maintain instream flows in Boulder and
<br />North Boulder Creeks, The Donation Agreement approved by the Board includes a term allowing the
<br />donated rights to revert back to the City for municipal purposes during extraordinary drought or a water
<br />supply emergency, CWCB staff recently met with the City concerning the impact of the drought on the
<br />donated water rights, Due to the severity of the drought, the City has indicated they will need to invoke the
<br />reversion clause in the donation agreement to assure an adequate water supply for its residents, Staff will
<br />continue to work with the City on this issue to ensure the terms of the agreement are met, and will keep the
<br />Board informed of the City's actions,
<br />
<br />County of Park v. Park County Sportsmen's Ranch: On April 8 the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that a
<br />state water right holder has the right to utilize ground water to transport water beneath a third party's
<br />property, The suit, brought by two landowners in South Park, alleged that Park County Sportsmen's Ranch
<br />(PCSR) would be liable for trespass if it recharged the aquifer, which lies partially beneath their property, for
<br />storage and subsequent pumping to recover the water. The landowners sued after PCSR filed an application
<br />for a conditional water right decree for the conjunctive use project, which would to be utilized by the city of
<br />Aurora, The landowners asked the state district court to declare that such use would constitute a trespass,
<br />They further alleged that PCSR had to either obtain their permission to utilize the ground water beneath their
<br />land, or the city would have to condenm the land and compensate them for its use,
<br />
<br />The case was removed to the water court, which ruled against the landowners in favor of PCSR, stating,
<br />"..,artificial recharge activities involving the movement of underground water into, from, or through tributary
<br />aquifers underlying surface lands ofthe Landowners would not constitute a trespass," and that no consent
<br />would be needed for the proposed project, Absent any actions by PCSR to build facilities on the surface, or
<br />any other action that would injure the landowner's enjoyment of their land, the water court concluded that
<br />there would be no taking, and saw no reason to restrict the use of ground water beneath the land,
<br />
<br />The landowners appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court, Meanwhile, the water court denied PCSR's
<br />application for the conditional water right. When the Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari, the
<br />landowners argued that the case was moot since there was no longer an existing controversy, With two
<br />justices dissenting, the court found that since PCSR could simply modifY its application and re-file, the case
<br />was still justiciable, The court relied on a state statute that explicitly grants a water right holder the privilege
<br />of utilizing natural formations for the passage of water (COLO, REV, STAT, 37-87-103), The Colorado
<br />Supreme Court said, "In sum, the holders of water use rights may employ underground as well as surface
<br />water bearing fonnations-in the state for the placement of water into, occupation of water in, conveyance of
<br />water through, and withdrawal of water from the natural water bearing formations in the exercise of water
<br />use rights,"
<br />
<br />Piping Plover Comment Period Reopened: The U,S, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has reopened the
<br />public comment period to allow more review of the proposal to designate critical habitat for the northem
<br />Great Plains population of piping plover and the draft report analyzing the potential economic impacts,
<br />Comments and information about the proposed designation of critical habitat and the draft economic analysis
<br />will be accepted until May 20, 2002,
<br />
<br />The Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires the USFWS to consider potential economic impacts of a critical
<br />habitat designation, Its draft analysis finds that over the next 10 years, total annual ESA Section 7
<br />consultation costs associated with activities potentially affecting piping plover due to designation of critical
<br />habitat would be a maximum of approximately $58,000 per year. This cost estimate is based on the number
<br />of anticipated informal and formal consultations generated because of the critical habitat designation, It also
<br />
<br />24
<br />
|