WSP07201 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

24 June, 1962 IR2 generally are detailed enough to assist materially in solving local problems. Such a study could provide the essential facts needed by litigants in a suit between well users. It might show that a defendant's well had not appreciably affected the plaintiff's supply, but had substantially reduced the artesian pres- sure causing the wells to cease flowing and requiring pumping equipment to restore the supply. Although the hydrologic facts might be clearly established, the court might have difficulty deciding the case. The question that might be argued is, "If the supply has not been changed, does the lowering of .artesian pressure constitute grounds for damage claims?" The solution of litigation problems such as these and those anticipated in the future will require a broad application and understanding of ground-water technology and, in the broader sense, the science of hydrology. Men in the field of hydrology are helping the State to recodify its present water laws in order to make them more compatible with the unChangeable physical laws. Members of the scientific and legal professions should coordinate their ef- forts in order that water-resources development may proceed at an undimin- ished rate. , :,' BENDER VERSUS THE CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS An example of ground-water technology and its coordination with legal pro- ceedings is shown by the case of Bender versus the city of Colorado Springs. It illustrates how a problem may be better evaluated if adequate facts are made available, if consultants specialized in the field of hydrology are avail- able to advise both sides, and if expert witnesses are available to explain and testify to the facts. The case of Bender versus the city of Colorado Springs was tried in the District Court of Colorado Springs in January, 1960. Bender was seeking an injunction to stop the city of Colorado Springs from pumping its wells, which he claimed was preventing him from obtaining his usual supply of water. Ben- der, the plaintiff, drilled a well in 1930, and began using the water from it in 1931, for irrigation. The well was used during each irrigation season from 1931 through 1947. Early in 1948, the original well caved in and a new well was drilled very near the site of the old well. The new well is still in use (as I. of 1962). I In 1954, the defendent, the city of Colorado Springs, drilled and put into use the four wells shown in Fig. 2. The city withdrew water during the years [' of 1954, 1955, and 1956. The wells of both the plaintiff and defendant tapped the same source or aquifer. Shortly after the city's wells began pumping, the plaintiff claimed that it was impossible to obtain enough water from his well to irrigate his crops adequately; he blamed the defendant. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff had suffered no damage as a result of the city's pumping. An investigation of the ground-water resources of Fountain Valley was begun in July, 1954, by the USGS in cooperation with the city of Colorado Springs and the Fountain Valley Water Users Association.6, 7,8 The object was to determine the origin, move- ment, and availability of ground water for domestic, stock, industrial, irri- 6 "Basic Data of the Fountain Creek Project," by Edward D. Jenkins, Dept. of the Interior, Washington, D. C., open-file report, U. S. G. S., 1956, Figs. 1-15. 7 "Records, Logs, and Water-Level Measurements of Selected Wells and Test Holes and Chemical Analysis of Ground Water in Fountain, Jimmy Camp, and Black Squirrel