WSP07201 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

IR2 JROUND-WATER TECHNOLOGY 23 ground water artificially by injecting good-quality filtered water into his well. Next he finds himself faced with a lawsuit; nearby property owner claims that recharging activities have damaged him. He claims that the recharging has waterlogged a part of his crop land, as shown in Fig. l. Although this is a hypothetical situation, it could be a real one. It serves to demonstrate how a seemingly beneficial action by one party could have se- rious physical and legal implications involving innocent parties. To prove or disprove the claim, ground-water technology must be applied to show: (1) Whether the areas involved in the suit are hydraulically connected; (2) whether the quantities and stresses imposed by the defendant's actions are of suffici- ent magnitude to create the alleged problem; (3) whether the time period be- tween the imposed stress and the development of the problem is compatible with the hydrologic facts; (4) whether any other artificial act or natural oc- currence might have produced the same effects; and (5) the hydrologic factors that will affect the assessment of damages. Problems among well users, and between the well user and the surface- Well ~ Recharge leve'~ ./ ./"' -~ "'" '-.... .......... Land waterlogged- ......... ...- Static level ~ - ..~.._..~_____.___________n__.____a.._..u.........._.________ Pumping level FIG. I.-WATERLOGGING CAUSED BY RECHARGING water user, have been and are likely to be more common. A claim by a sur- face-water user that his rights on a stream are being infringed on by a well user, who is withdrawing large quantities of ground water from alluvial ma- terials underlying the stream bank, is relatively simple to prove. But, what about a claim against a well user who is located several miles from the stream? Given enough time, his withdrawals could be equally as damaging as those from the closer well, but the damages and implications would be much more difficult to prove. Because the law places the burden of proof on the well user, the cost of any hydrologic study might have to be borne by him. The large expense, coupled with the likelihood of defeat, probably would dis- courage most well users from fighting many claims. Studies have been and are being conducted by the United States Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the Colorado Water Conservation Board and other State and local governmental bodies. These studies cover most of the areas in which ground water has been developed extensively. Although de- signed chiefly to evaluate the ground-water resources regionally, the studies