DISQUS

I disagree with one part of the legal opinion expressed by Dunn. Because the pumpers of brackish water would be attempting to take advantage of an exception to State Engineer jurisdiction, I believe they would bear the burden of proving they fell within the exception. And, because you're dealing with formations and hydrological connections that are 1000s of feet deep, this would be a very expensive proposition. I also believe that the term "aquifer" has many possible definitions, and therefore, the Courts should defer to the State Engineer's reasonable definition of the term. The State Engineer can and should define "aquifer" as broadly as scientifically reasonable, to assure protection of existing water rights.

Bruce Frederick

I disagree with one part of the legal opinion expressed by Dunn. Because the pumpers of brackish water would be attempting to take advantage of an exception to State Engineer jurisdiction, I believe they would bear the burden of proving they fell within the exception. And, because you're dealing with formations and hydrological connections that are 1000s of feet deep, this would be a very expensive proposition. I also believe that the term "aquifer" has many possible definitions, and therefore, the Courts should defer to the State Engineer's reasonable definition of the term. The State Engineer can and should define "aquifer" as broadly as scientifically reasonable, to assure protection of existing water rights.

Bruce Frederick

The State Engineer has spent millions on adjudications, but most of that money is not used to adjudicate water rights. Instead it is spent largely on "make work" projects, such as trying to join 20,000 parties to an adjudication, which is a lawsuit, and then attempting to update the land ownership of these parties. Land ownership is regarded as key, because most of the water use is due to the exercise of irrigation water rights, and irrigation water rights are appurtenant to land. However, trying to keep up-to-the-minute records of who owns 20,000 parcels of land is like trying the chase the rainbow. The existing Rules of Civil Procedure provide tools to solve this problem, but the courts do not use the Rules effectively and often become confused by the arguments of private attorneys whose main aim is to delay the adjudication.

The State Engineer has spent millions on adjudications, but most of that money is not used to adjudicate water rights. Instead it is spent largely on "make work" projects, such as trying to join 20,000 parties to an adjudication, which is a lawsuit, and then attempting to update the land ownership of these parties. Land ownership is regarded as key, because most of the water use is due to the exercise of irrigation water rights, and irrigation water rights are appurtenant to land. However, trying to keep up-to-the-minute records of who owns 20,000 parcels of land is like trying the chase the rainbow. The existing Rules of Civil Procedure provide tools to solve this problem, but the courts do not use the Rules effectively and often become confused by the arguments of private attorneys whose main aim is to delay the adjudication.