We are getting close to presentation of the Sub District No. 1 annual replacement plan. I think it is important for supporters and objectors to examine a couple of provisions from the approval by the Supreme Court of the S.D. plan.
Pg. 7 10. The use of retained jurisdiction in the Court Plan as a substitute for a finding of no material injury and as a substitute for specific terms and conditions.
Pg. 8 We hold that Subdistrict No. 1ís Plan as decreed complies with the special statutory provisions applicable to its statutes and the decree, the burden of showing that the annual replacement plan operates to protect adjudicated senior surface water users against material injury remains with the Subdistrict. When a surface water right holder properly alleges material injury under the Plan as decreed, the Subdistrict bears the burden under retained jurisdiction of going forward with evidence, as well as sustaining its burden of proof, to demonstrate non-injury.
Pg. 45 (4) notice with the court and the public of the State Engineerís approval of the Subdistrictís annual replacement plan following a public comment period, (5) retained jurisdiction over all aspects of the Plan, with any party wishing to challenge the terms of the annual replacement plan entitled to invoke the water courtís jurisdiction within two weeks of the State Engineerís approval.