Laserfiche WebLink
<br />./ .. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Governor Romer - Kansas v. Colorado <br />March 21, 1994 <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />7. will post-compact wells (wells constructed after Hay 31, <br />1949) be curtailed beyond the current four days a week? <br /> <br />Yes. The State Engineer will begin curtailing unaugmented <br />post-compact wells starting next year. Wellowners with <br />junior priorities in other river basins in Colorado are <br />required to augment or replace their depletions. <br />Administration of water users throughout the state, under <br />Colorado's prior appropriation system, is appropriate <br />regardless of a court decision in Kansas v. Colorado. <br /> <br />8. will post-compact wells located east of the Buffalo Canal <br />headgate be required to augment more? <br /> <br />Those wells with priority dates after May 31, 1949, will have <br />to augment in an amount equal to their depletions to useable <br />stateline flows because of their geographic location and <br />because of the lack of intervening Colorado water users. <br /> <br />9. How did Colorado qet into this predicament? <br /> <br />It is important to recognize that Kansas sued Colorado. <br />Colorado is the defendant. Kansas' original claims related <br />to the operation of the Trinidad Reservoir project and the <br />winter water storage program. So far in this litigation, <br />based on the draft Master's report, Colorado has won these <br />issues. Shortly before the lawsuit was filed, Kansas also <br />came up with its claims on the administration of wells. The <br />impacts of well development which took place in the 1950s and <br />60s has been the subject of disputes in Colorado for many <br />years. As the Master acknowledge, such impacts are difficult <br />to determine. <br /> <br />10. What are Colorado's potential liabilities, in terms of water <br />and dollars? If we have a monetary liability, who pays? <br /> <br />Potential liability is in two areas: accumulated depletions <br />and future administration. That liability can involve both <br />water and monetary damages. My position is that Colorado <br />should assist the water users of the Arkansas River basin to <br />pay (through water or money) whatever damages might <br />ultimately accrue to the state for past depletions. It is <br />important to recognize that the judgment will lie against the <br />state -as~ a whole. Colorado must also institute whatever <br />administrative measures are necessary in order to assure <br />'future compliance with the terms of the compact, according to <br />whatever decision the U. S. Supreme Court renders. Depletions <br />from future pumping probably should be a responsibility of <br />the wellowners, depending on the ultimate outcome of the <br />