Opinion ID: 2823795
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Closed Basin Project Water

Text: Â¶39Â Â Â Â Â Â The 2012 ARP identified 2500 acre-feet of water from Closed Basin Project production as a source of replacement water to remedy injurious depletions from Subdistrict well pumping. Objectors contest the adequacy and suitability of this water for replacement. We agree with the water court that the 2012 ARPâs inclusion of ClosedÂ Basin Project water was adequate and suitable to replace injurious depletions and prevent injury to senior water rights. Â¶40Â Â Â Â Â Â The Closed Basin Project 3 is a federal reclamation project that aids Colorado in meeting its obligations under the Rio Grande Compact. 4 The Closed Basin Project is located in a closed basin area lying over the unconfined aquifer in the San Luis Valley. Simpson v. Cotton Creek Circles, LLC, 181 P.3d 252, 255 (Colo. 2008). Project wells pump water from a sump area in the closed basin to lower the water table and reduce surface evaporation and evapotranspiration. Id.; Closed Basin Landowners Assân v. RioÂ Grande Water Conservation Dist., 734 P.2d 627, 630 (Colo. 1987). Conveyance channels then deliver the water produced by the project to the Rio Grande, downstream of Alamosa, below all surface diversion points in the Subdistrict. Closed Basin Landowners Assân, 734 P.2d at 629. Â¶41Â Â Â Â Â Â Closed Basin Project water was decreed to the Rio Grande Water Conservation District in Case No. W-3038. The Closed Basin Decree recited the beneficial uses of the appropriation as: Irrigation, domestic, industrial, recreational, fish culture, wildlife uses by exchange and sale, and regulation and maintenance of minimum stream flows, and to provide supplemental water to meet Coloradoâs obligation under the Rio Grande Compact, and accomplish maximum utilization of Coloradoâs share of the flows of the Rio Grande River under the Compact. Â¶42Â Â Â Â Â Â The Amended Plan states that the Subdistrict must provide in its ARP â[a]n estimate of total annual Closed Basin Project production for the Plan Year and the portion thereof allocated to the Rio Grande and/or the Subdistrict and available for replacement of injurious well depletions.â In the 2010 Decree, the water court found that Closed Basin Project water delivered to the Rio Grande can be substituted for Compact deliveries otherwise required, thereby making additional water available for upstream diversion. The water court expressly found that the use of Closed Basin Project water is an appropriate source of replacement water: Including Closed Basin Project production as part of the Subdistrictâs Annual Replacement Plan is clearly within the scope of the beneficial uses set forth in the Closed Basin Project decree, and the Subdistrictâs inclusion of Project water as a possible replacement source is not prohibited. In fact, integrating the Subdistrictâs plan of water management with the obligation for water delivery under the Rio Grande Compact is an essential statutory requirement. Coordination with existing methods of addressing the Compact obligation and proven methods of improving water availability to senior surface water rights is both sensible and prudent. 2010 Decree, Â¶ 304. Â¶43Â Â Â Â Â Â Objectors challenged the Subdistrictâs listing of Closed Basin Project water as a source of replacement water in San Antonio. 270 P.3d at 951. However, we declined to address this issue because it was not squarely before us. Id. Rather, we observed that: âThe adequacy, timing and suitability of project water to prevent injury to water rights under the Plan will be addressed through the annual replacement plan procedure.â Id. The adequacy, timing, and suitability of this water as a source of replacement water are now before us.Â Â¶44Â Â Â Â Â Â Objectors assert that the Subdistrict may not use Closed Basin Project water as a source of replacement water in its ARP because: (1) Project water is tributary groundwater, and, therefore, pumping such water is presumed to cause injury to surface rights; (2) it is not decreed for use as a replacement supply; and (3) use of the water as part of an ARP unreasonably interferes with the Stateâs ability to fulfill its Compact obligations. We reject each of these contentions. Â¶45Â Â Â Â Â Â Objectors first contend that the Closed Basin Project wells presumptively cause injurious depletions to the Rio Grande because the closed basin is tributary to the Rio Grande, and any withdrawal of groundwater tributary to this over-appropriated system is presumed to be injurious to senior water right owners. Objectors further argue that Closed Basin Project water is salvaged because project pumping lowers the water table to avoid evaporation and evapotranspiration losses. Objectors contend that, under Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District v. Shelton Farms, Inc., 529 P.2d 1321, 1324â25 (Colo. 1974), as modified on denial of rehâg (Jan. 20, 1975), such salvaged water must be administered within the priority system. Â¶46Â Â Â Â Â Â The Closed Basin Decree explains the Closed Basin Project in detail and states that â[t]he water developed by drainage and the operation of the proposed wells would be collected in and transported toâ the Rio Grande. (Emphasis added.) The Decree similarly states that the project will âcollect and introduce into the Rio Grande River a large volume of water.â (Emphasis added.) Regardless of whether such water is characterized as salvaged or developed, the Closed Basin Decree makes clear that water produced by the Closed Basin Project is water that would not otherwise have made itsÂ way to the Rio Grande. Thus, the water court in this case could not presume that pumping Project wells causes injury to senior surface rights, and Objectors presented no evidence that Project water would in fact reach the Rio Grande without the Projectâs operations. In any event, this court has previously rejected a similar challenge based on Shelton Farms, 529 P.2d at 1321, as an impermissible collateral attack on the Closed Basin Decree. Closed Basin Landowners Assân, 734 P.2d at 636â37; see also Lake Durango Water Co. v. Pub. Utils. Commân, 67 P.3d 12, 22 (Colo. 2003), as modified on denial of rehâg (Apr. 28, 2003) (noting that a final judgment by a court with proper jurisdiction is not subject to collateral attack). Â¶47Â Â Â Â Â Â Objectors next contend that Closed Basin Project water is not decreed for use as replacement water in an ARP and that its use as replacement water interferes with its ability to meet Compact obligations. However, when Closed Basin Project water is delivered to the Rio Grande, it assists Colorado in meeting its Compact obligations and allows senior surface right holders to increase diversions by an equivalent amount of water. Because introduction of Closed Basin Project water into the Rio Grande reduces Compact curtailment of senior surface rights, it serves a dual purpose of replacing injurious depletions and meeting Compact obligations. In other words, Closed Basin Project water can simultaneously replace water diverted out of priority and meet Coloradoâs obligations under the Rio Grande Compact. Therefore, the 2012 ARPâs designation of Closed Basin Project water as replacement water involved a suitable use of the water under the terms of the Closed Basin Decree. Â¶48Â Â Â Â Â Â Further, the operation of the Amended Plan and 2012 ARP is integrated with the administration of the Rio Grande Compact. The Compact has an annual delivery schedule, see Rio Grande Compact, art. III (codified at Â§ 37-66-101, C.R.S. (2014)), so if the Subdistrict inadvertently under replaces injurious depletions, the Division Engineer can reduce existing Compact curtailments to make more water available to surface right holders. The Subdistrict can then replace Compact under-deliveries by delivering more replacement water in the next month. See id. This arrangement prevents injury to senior right holders, assists the State in meeting Compact obligations, and is consistent with the âmaximum utilization of Coloradoâs share of the flows of the Rio Grande Riverâ under the Closed Basin Decree. Â¶49Â Â Â Â Â Â We hold that the Closed Basin Project provided a suitable source of replacement water in the 2012 ARP because the water could simultaneously meet Compact obligations and replace injurious depletions. We further hold that use of the Closed Basin Project water rights for replacement falls within their decreed purposes. Therefore, the water court properly concluded that Closed Basin Project water was adequate and suitable to prevent injury to senior surface right holders.