Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Page 7 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />does not have to make deliveries of water to the state line, which means that water rights need <br />not be curtailed in that year for Compact deliveries. Any legal determinations and negotiated <br />discussions regarding the ownership, operation and management of the reservoir and its water <br />rights are critical to Colorado. Texas also filed a motion to intervene. <br /> <br />All motions to dismiss and intervene were stayed to allow a mediation process to <br />proceed. After two years, negotiations have been unsuccessful and litigation will proceed. The <br />court will decide motions to intervene after the motions to dismiss are briefed. The motions to <br />dismiss argue that there is a state court adjudication that the United States is participating in and <br />that this case is an end run around the state court. Colorado filed a brief opposing the motions <br />arguing that the court has jurisdiction and should retain the action because it affects an <br />international treaty, an interstate compact arnong three states, and water users in two states and <br />Mexico. <br /> <br />David Goss v. Colorado Ground Water Commission, and Cherokee Metropolitan District <br />v. Upper Black Squirrel Creek Ground Water Manal!;ement District, Colorado Supreme <br />Court 99SA96 (February 22, 2000). <br /> <br />Issue: Do Ground Water Management Districts have authority to enforce permits and <br />priorities of wells under the modified system of prior appropriation governing designated ground <br />water? <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />Decision: Yes. The Ground Water Commission decides in the first instance whether ther is <br />water available for appropriation when issuing a well permit. The local Management District <br />then has the authority to determine disputes between permitted well owners involving allegations <br />of injury and requests for issuance of well curtailment orders. <br /> <br />Discussion: This case is a jurisdictional dispute over who is responsible for the administration <br />of the modified prior appropriation system in the designated ground water basins. The Ground <br />Water Commission convinced the designated ground water judge that the Upper Black Squirrel <br />Creek District has primary authority for this task. The District believes the Commission has <br />primary authority and appealed the decision. Ted Kowalski argued the case before the Colorado <br />Supreme Court in January. <br /> <br />Park County Water Preservation Coalition v. Columbine Associates, et al., Colorado <br />Supreme Court 98SA449 (February 14,2000). <br /> <br />Issue: Did the City of Aurora demonstrate reasonable diligence in the development of is <br />conditional water rights for the Columbine Reservoir Storage Project? <br /> <br />Decision: The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the water court that Aurora <br />had done so. <br /> <br />7 <br />