Well, well, well. A March 17 ruling made by the district water court has Cherokee Metropolitan District and Upper Black Squirrel Ground Water Management District at odds. The interpretation of what constitutes an “emergency” is what ultimately brought CMD and UBSGWMD to water court.Dave Doran, director of UBSGWMD, said in 1999, CMD entered into a stipulation with UBSGWMD that stated CMD could develop wells – the Sweetwater Wells – in the southern end of the UBS basin. But the agreement also stipulated that water in existing wells one through eight in the northern end of the basin could only be exported out of the basin in an emergency.Doran said the Sweetwater Wells didn’t produce enough water for the demand, so CMD used the upper wells to keep up with growth. He said there was enough water from the Sweetwater Wells in 1999 when the agreement was made between CMD and UBSGWMD, but not enough to keep up with the growth over the years.”They stretched the definition of emergency. It doesn’t mean supplying subdivision after subdivision after subdivision,” Doran said. “There was a lack of water to commit to all the growth.”CMD disagrees with the ruling. Peter Susemihl, CMD attorney, said he is “amazed by it.”He added, “The judge completely rewrote our agreement. We thought it was straight-forward.”Susemihl said CMD did decrease pumping in wells one through eight in the northern basin, and they were to be used for emergency and back-up water only. Susemihl said they operated this way for four years.He said CMD has appealed the decision to the Colorado Supreme Court.And the water debate continues.”Disagreements are common because different parties have different desires, so there is a legal debate in water court,” said Suzanne Sellers, water resource engineer for the Colorado Division of Water Resources. “The state has rules and policies users may not agree with.”She said the debate between CMD and UBSGWMD is about the definition of “emergency.””The amount of water they (CMD) needed was more than the southwest area produced, so they relied on the north eight wells to subsidize, which is not a true emergency,” Sellers said.”Exported water does not replenish outside of basin boundary,” she said.”We are trying to sit down with all the entities to find solutions, but we haven’t heard any solutions as of yet,” Doran said. “We want to make sure the water goes to the best use.”Sellers explained that the Colorado Ground Water Commission controls ground water in the eight designated basins in Colorado, while the water court oversees all surface water and ground water not in basin.UBSGWMD does not have a problem with using the water, if it stays in the basin, Doran said, but if it’s pumped out, it is never returned and a valuable resource is depleted.”They feel they need to grow, but without the resources – only a finite amount of water – it will be a problem for years and years,” Doran said. “I think the ruling was a shot across the bow of things to come. I think the judges ruling is right on the money.”CMD provides considerable amounts of water to Falcon. It’s a real hot topic how much in the basin can be supplied to further growth.”Fred Herman, vice president of Protect Our Wells, an advocacy group for private well owners, weighed in on the ruling.”As advocates, we attend various county and city meetings and other government agency meetings, as well as try to organize meetings with homeowner associations and the media to help come up with long-term solutions for rural water users who are not on a major metropolitan water system,” Herman said.Many issues will arise, he said, because subdivision construction was approved by the county without water resources. “There won’t be any water for the homeowners, and they are going to be left holding the bag for the lack of water.”
