Laserfiche WebLink
<br />420 acre-feet/year of fully-consumable water rights which he claims <br />to own, evidently as "augmentation" or "exchange" water to mitigate <br />the depletive effects on the Upper Black Squirrel Creek alluvium <br />that will result from his proposed exposure and/or use of alluvial <br />ground water. The Bookers assert that Applicant's water rights are <br />defined by Final Permit Nos. 15389-FP, 2076-FP, and 4332-FP issued <br />by the Commission on October 1, 1984 and by the August 13, 1976 <br />Findings of Fact, Conclusions, and Order of the Commission (a copy <br />of which is attached hereto as Appendix A and incorporated herein <br />by this reference). Said Findings of Fact, Conclusions, and Order <br />remain subject to the de novo review of the E1 Paso County District <br />Court in Civil Action No. 95137 upon remand from the Colorado <br />Supreme Court in Cherokee Water District v. State, 196 Colo. 192, <br />585 P.2d 586 (1978). Neither Applicant's final permits nor the <br />August 13, 1976 Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Order of the <br />Commission currently authorize Applicant to make either mining or <br />recreational beneficial uses of the designated ground water rights <br />covered thereby. §37-90-111(1)(g), C.R.S. enables Applicant to <br />seek the Commission's authorization of a change of type of use of <br />his water rights so as to permit the "augmentation" or "exchange" <br />for the depletive effects of his proposed mining and recreational <br />uses of designated ground water, but again, to the Bookers' <br />information and belief, Applicant has not made any such application <br />to the Commission as of the underwritten date. The Bookers assert <br />that the Commission's granting of such an application pursuant to <br />§37-90-111(1)(g), C.R.S. is a necessary prerequisite to any mining <br />and/or recreational beneficial use of Applicant's designated ground <br />water rights and to any determination by the Board that "[d]isturb- <br />ances to the prevailing hydrologic balance of the affected land and <br />of the surrounding area and to the quality and quantity of water in <br />surface and ground water systems both during and after the mining <br />operation and during reclamation shall be minimized", as required <br />by §§34-32-116(1)(h), C.R.S. and 34-32-115(4)(g), C.R.S. <br />4. On information and belief, the Bookers assert that <br />Applicant's somewhat qualified "pledge" of 20 acre-feet/year of <br />"augmentation" or "exchange" water may be insufficient to fully <br />mitigate the depletive effects of all of Applicant's contemplated <br />uses and/or exposures of designated ground water. Accordingly, the <br />Bookers demand that Applicant be put to strict hydrologic proof as <br />to the maximum annual amount of designated ground water that will <br />be so consumed and/or depleted pursuant to his plan. Additionally, <br />the Bookers specifically demand that any such "pledge" of "augmen- <br />tation" or "exchange" water be exclusively attributed to, and <br />charged against, Applicant's seniormost water right, represented by <br />Final Permit No. 15389-FP, for the reason that Applicant's other <br />two water rights, represented by Final Permit Nos. 2076-FP and <br />4332-FP are far too junior amongst the water rights priorities of <br />the Designated Basin as determined by the Commission to be legally <br />or physically dependable for such "augmentation" or "exchange" <br />requirements. <br />-2- <br />