FLOOD02047 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. I I . I I I . . I . I I I I I '. I I 21-45(3)(b)(iii).)A very important point is that this is a rebuttable presump- tion and thus the state engineer can deny a permit application. JI,ftet. June 1, 1972, applications for well permits are considered with greater sct'utiny by the state engineer. Larger subdividers generally prepare a water "augmen ta ti on" plan. The plan tells how the consumpti on of water resources wi 11 he offset to repair damage to other water right holders, This plan is typically brought befo)'e the water court for a "decree" that accepts or rejects the plan. If no points of law are raised, a referee of the court renders a decision in 60 days. If a point of law is raised or statements of opposition are filed during a 20-day fi 1 i ng period, then a tri a 1 date is set by the judge. Each plan of augmentation presents its own material and is judged on an individ- ual basis. Jlugmentation plans may compensate for damages by obtaining "shares" (one shat'e usually equals one cubic foot per second) in water companies who de- posit water in the system according to the amount needed to "augment" the supply. Other remedies exist, For example, abandonment of irrigated land in "perpetuity" rllay offset consumptive use, Once the plan is approved, a subdivider will usually go back to the county to se- cure the necessary rights, etc., and file for subdivision review procedures. The 1J1an is then reviewed by the state engineer and a permit is granted. Smal1er subdividers, who are often granted local waivers to the full 5.8, 35 pro- cess, apply directly to the state engineer for permits. According to the situation, pemits are cJranted or rejected by the state engineer. {J, rejection is usually fol- lowed by the applicant going to water court to seek a positive decree by the judge. In parcels over 35 acres, well permits are generally not denied as they do not fall undel' the ca tegory of a subdi vi s i on. I f a party feels damaged by a new user with a 35-acre tract, his remedy is to sue in civil court. The matter is no longer under cdwinist)"ative jurisdiction of the State and "lower" water court. 2. WATER RESOURCE IMPACTS: Colorado water law is said to follow the axiom of "first in time, first in right." I, major qualifier to this statement is the general rule that the injured party has the burden of proof. vlater law is obviously a complex and dynamic phenomenon. "Gen- eral" rules are often fraught with exceptions that refer to specific decisions and specific cases. What the case was in the past will not necessarily govern today or tomo r rOl'i . Case #79 01108, Ronald S. Dump, will give some insight into legal proceedings as they affect the Parkville Water District. Nr. Dump's application for a 15-g.p,m. domestic well on a five-acre tract (subdivided after 1972) will be heard within the next several weeks in Pueblo Water Court. Parkville Water District has taken three parties to civil court seeking to stop development on the basis that it would cause contamination to the ~Iater supply In two cases, the court' ruled in favor of the defendant. Even if new cases were tried, in which small subdividers were found to have mater- ially injured Parkville's water rights, a precedent cannot be set because each case may present and be judged upon entirely different circumstances. Related to this is the fact that a new state engineer has recently taken office. lhere is some indication that a review of old policies may alter certain practices ot the State level. 11