Opinion ID: 2621332
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Gallegos Family's Claims

Text: This case raises difficulties not apparent in Vickroy and Pioneer Irrigation Districts because the Gallegos Family, unlike the plaintiffs in the previous cases, has never asserted that their injury is being caused by the pumping of ground water subject to the 1969 Act or that the water court has jurisdiction over the matter. Instead, the Gallegos Family has consistently maintained that only designated ground water is involved in this case, yet also has claimed that the designated ground water is tributary to their surface rights to greater than a de minimis extent. [5] Because they claim that only designated ground water is at issue, the Gallegos Family maintains that jurisdiction lies in the Commission. Based on the constitutional nature of their surface rights, the Gallegos Family insists that the Commission must administer the pumping of designated ground water wells for the benefit of their senior surface rights according to the prior appropriation doctrine codified in the 1969 Act. The flaw in this position, however, is that we have repeatedly and consistently stated that the administration of waters under the 1969 Act is inapplicable to the Commission's administration of designated ground water under the Management Act. Goss, 993 P.2d at 1183 (In sum, designated ground water priorities are administered under the [Management] Act, rather that the 1969 Act.) (citations omitted); Pioneer Irr., 658 P.2d at 845 (The Management Act, with the exception of sections 37-90-136 through 139, relates solely to designated ground water. All tributary waters, except that which may be included in the definition of designated ground water, are administered under the Water Right Determination and Administration Act of 1969.) (citations omitted); Vickroy, 627 P.2d at 758 (The Management Act relates solely to designated ground water; the 1969 Act does not apply to designated ground water.) (citations omitted). The need to keep the Management Act and the 1969 Act separate and distinct stems from the basic policy differences underlying the two statutes. See, e.g., Colo. Ground Water Comm'n v. Eagle Peak Farms, Ltd., 919 P.2d 212, 215 (Colo.1996). As we have previously stated: We recognize the dissimilarity in the basic policies underlying the laws of this State for surface water and for ground water in designated basins. Prior appropriation rules for surface water were primarily designed and developed to protect the relative rights of senior and junior appropriators, in order to maximize the beneficial use of the surface water in this State. . . . In contrast, Colorado's permit system for regulation of the appropriation of water in designated ground water basins under the Act permits the full development of ground water sources while protecting against depletion of the underground aquifer, which is not subject to the same ready recharge enjoyed by surface streams and tributary ground water. Danielson v. Kerbs AG., Inc., 646 P.2d 363, 370 (Colo.1982). Accepting the Gallegos Family's position that designated ground water should be administered according to the prior appropriation system of the 1969 Act would confuse the two statutes and would frustrate legislative intent.