Arkansas Valley: SECWCD gets into case for new irrigation rules

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The district will enter the case as an opposer, not to stop the rules, but to make sure water under its supervision is used correctly. Under the rules, filed in Division 2 water court on Sept. 30 by State Engineer Dick Wolfe, Fryingpan-Arkansas return flows can be used as replacement water to assure compliance with the Arkansas River Compact between Colorado and Kansas. However, not all of the farmland in the Lower Arkansas Valley is in the Southeastern district, explained Bob Hamilton, engineering supervisor. The district also wants to assure winter water is correctly accounted for. Winter water is stored from Nov. 15 to March 15 in lieu of irrigation…

More Ark Valley consumptive use rules coverage here and here.

Southeastern board scrutinizes new consumptive use rules for Arkansas Valley

The board of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District was briefed on the new consumptive use rules that were filed by the State Engineer’s office in Division 2 Water Court last month. Here’s a report from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

The rules are meant to protect Colorado under the 1948 Arkansas River Compact with Kansas, Division 2 Engineer Steve Witte explained. They apply to improvements such as lining canals, putting pipe in off-farm laterals or using chemicals like PAM to reduce leakage. The most controversial part of the rules, however, applies to sprinklers fed by surface ponds. The rules apply only to 1999 improvements made after 1999, the last reckoning of water use by the two states. Witte has made a pitch for the possibility of depleting flows through the river with such improvements since 1996…

The difference is between ditches with adequate water supplies, like the Bessemer Ditch, and water-short ditches, like the Fort Lyon Canal. Improvements like sprinklers might result in more irrigated acreage or higher yields, hence more consumptive use, Witte said. “When we talk about senior rights with full supply, they may increase the flow to the river,” Witte said…

Witte said farmers are still welcome to use their own engineering to prove there is no harm to the river from improvements…

The rules also provide for compliance plans – the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District and Arkansas Valley Ditch Association are looking at possible versions – as a way to meet state requirements. There also are general permits for areas outside of the zone covered by a model developed for the Kansas v. Colorado U.S. Supreme Court case. That includes many tributaries and all pre-1884 water rights upstream of Lake Pueblo.

More Arkansas Valley consumptive use rules here and here.

Arkansas Valley: State Engineer files new surface irrigation rules in Division 2 Water Court

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

“The Irrigation Improvement Rules are designed to allow improvements to the efficiency of irrigation systems in the Arkansas River Basin while ensuring compliance with the Arkansas River Compact,” [State Engineer Dick Wolfe] said in the court filing…

The rules would take effect on Jan. 1, 2011, and would apply only to surface irrigation improvements in the Arkansas River Basin made since 1999. The goal is to prevent the depletion of return flows to the Arkansas River which could be caused by things like sprinklers, drip irrigation systems and lining of canals. Under a draft set of rules proposed in late 2007, the burden of proving that improvements did not affect return flows fell entirely on irrigators. Several changes were made in the rules that removed some on-farm improvements, such as gated pipe or concrete lining of small ditches, from the rules during those meetings. The state also recognized the need for general permits within certain parts of the Arkansas Valley and agreed to take things like pond seepage into account. The state also developed a model that builds on engineering already accepted by Kansas to determine the impact of sprinkler systems based on their location in the Arkansas Valley, finding that on ditches with adequate water supplies, efficiencies could benefit the river, while improvements on water-short ditches could reduce return flows.

After the final committee meeting on the rules, farmers indicated they are still not convinced the loss of flows can be accurately measured and questioned some of the assumptions that are made in the state’s model. Wolfe countered that the model is flexible enough to accommodate changes if new data proves the assumptions wrong.

More Arkansas Valley ag rules coverage here and here.

Arkansas River: Lower valley irrigation rules move ahead

Here’s a recap of yesterday’s meeting of the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District Board, from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

The Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District Board Wednesday unanimously voted to continue developing its compliance plan, refine estimates about costs to participating farmers and pursue the remainder of state funds set aside to ease the impact of the rules on farmers. “There have been substantial changes in the rules to reduce the impacts and costs to farmers,” attorney Peter Nichols told the Lower Ark board. Some of those changes have included the removal of on-farm improvements for things like pipe, ditch lining, furrowing techniques or fertilizers and adding new ways to comply with the rules…

The district also has used about $100,000 of $250,000 in available state funds so far to develop a compliance plan under Rule 10 of the state’s proposal. The board voted to apply for the remaining $150,000 to refine its plan and identify specific sources for replacement water…

The engineers developed two plans for compliance, depending on whether return flows come back to the Arkansas River above and below John Martin Reservoir. River conditions and presumed consumptive use differ depending on the location, Ten Eyck explained. The plans use refined models based on state data to determine the average amount of water a farmer would owe the river. Fees would be based both on the cost of running the program and the size of deficit or credit generated by each farm under the models…

The Lower Ark district would provide replacement water to the state to make up the deficits to the river. Water would be obtained from a variety of sources, and enough kept in storage to cover maximum projected deficits each year…

Farmers, in recent meetings with the Lower Ark district and with the state committee looking at the rules, say they are still not happy with the concept that led to the rules. “We have a philosophical difference,” Fred Heckman, a Fort Lyon Canal farmer near McClave, told the Lower Ark board Wednesday. He explained farmers look at it as an economic question, while the state is concerned with the volume of water. The model being used by the state probably underestimates consumptive use on the Fort Lyon in particular and overestimates the efficiency of sprinklers operated from ponds, Heckman said. The state has adjusted the model, just this week adding seepage from ponds as a factor, and will continue to adjust it as better numbers emerge, State Engineer Dick Wolfe said Monday. Even with the current numbers, the damage to the river, estimated to be about 1,000 acre-feet annually from 120 sprinklers installed so far, is statistically insignificant, Heckman said. At the same time, farmers can’t afford the costs of providing annual engineering reports for each system, another option under the state rules, so most would probably sign on with the Lower Ark plans, Heckman said.

More coverage of the proposed new rules, from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

“You do not have consensus on filing these rules the way they are,” said Dan Henrichs, speaking for the Arkansas Valley Ditch Association.

“We fully recognize that,” replied State Engineer Dick Wolfe. “We never thought we would get 100-percent consensus. We think we’ve got a large majority of those who recognize the benefit and need for these.”[...]

Water rights decrees specify an amount of water and area of land to be irrigated and sprinkler systems cover the same area as flood irrigation, Henrichs said. “The method of irrigation does not increase consumptive use,” he said. State models claim it does, however, and in particular along water-short ditches like the Fort Lyon Canal.

The rules incorporate a variety of strategies to deal with perceived or measured depletions of return flows to the Arkansas River from improvements to farms or canal systems since 1999. They cover only surface irrigation improvements – not wells – in the Arkansas Valley with the intention of preventing future shortfalls in deliveries to Kansas at the state line.

More Arkansas Valley ag efficiency coverage here.

Arkansas Valley: State engineer plans to file proposed irrigation rules in Division 2 Water Court by the end of the month

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

At the end of the month, the state plans to file new rules in Division 2 Water Court that would cover improvements like sprinklers and drip irrigation systems fed by surface sources, rather than wells. Canal improvements, such as concrete lining or pipelines, are also covered, but on-farm improvements have been exempted during a process set up last year by State Engineer Dick Wolfe.

A committee made up of affected farmers, lawyers and governmental agencies involved in chipping the rough edges off rules first proposed in 2007 will have its final meeting in Pueblo on Sept. 21. “I think we’ve done a great job,” Wolfe said. “The whole idea was to get a consensus on a draft set of rules. The committee has worked through a lot of issues and we’ve made substantial changes along the way.”

More Arkansas Valley consumptive rule rules coverage here and here.

Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District meeting recap

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District Wednesday heard a report on the concept for the compliance plan from Gregg Ten Eyck of Leonard Rice Engineers. “There are really two plans,” Ten Eyck said, separating the valley into regions where flows are returned either above or below John Martin Reservoir. “There are different requirements in timing, the types of water and how they respond to the rest of the river system.”

The plan is being developed in response to State Engineer Dick Wolfe’s plan to file the rules in Division 2 Water Court on Sept. 30. There will be one more meeting, on Sept. 21, of an advisory committee before the rules are filed. The rules primarily are aimed at large irrigation sprinkler systems fed by ponds put in since 1999 and are meant to avoid further violations of the Arkansas River Compact. The compliance plans would cost farmers $100 per farm headgate, plus fees of up to $25 an acre-foot for replacement water under the plan presented by Ten Eyck. A 10-year average, calculated for each farm in the plan, would be used to determine how much water the Lower Ark would be expected to provide. Once a farmer signed on, the Lower Ark district would absorb the ups and downs of the hydrologic cycle.

More Arkansas Basin consumptive use rules coverage here and here.

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District board Wednesday agreed to extend its agreement to help improve Fountain Creek for another two years. The new agreement will include the Fountain Creek Watershed Flood Control and Greenway District as well as Colorado Springs Utilities. The Fountain Creek District board will consider on Aug. 28 an offer by the Lower Ark and Colorado Springs as a way to fund a director and administrative costs until a $50 million commitment by Colorado Springs kicks in.

More Fountain Creek coverage here and here.

Kansas and Colorado turn the last page on lawsuit over instream flows in the Arkansas River Basin

From the Associated Press via the Kansas City Star:

The two states filed an agreement with the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve the final technical issues about monitoring Colorado’s use of water from the river. The agreement is designed to prevent the river’s depletion as it flows into southwest Kansas.

More Kansas v. Colorado coverage here.

Arkansas Valley: New irrigation rules on track

From the Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The state is proposing the rules to ensure that irrigation improvements using surface supplies – sprinklers, ditch lining or pipes – don’t increase consumptive use. If they do, supplies to downstream users within the state and across the Kansas border could be reduced, raising the specter of more legal action over the Arkansas River Compact. The rules would cover improvements made in the Arkansas Valley since 1999, when Kansas and Arkansas reached agreement on historic consumptive use – the amount of water crops consume. The last committee meeting will be at 1 p.m. June 22 at the Pueblo Board of Water Works conference room, [State Engineer Dick Wolfe] said. By then, Kansas will have reviewed the rules a second time, and the state can consider those comments along with the concerns of in-state irrigators…

The state is not relying on the data from 40-50 years ago that was used in the Kansas v. Colorado lawsuit to build the new computer model for changes in consumptive use for surface irrigation improvements, Wolfe said. The state is using data from a lysimeter – a mechanical means of measuring how much water is used to grow a crop – and studying weather patterns to fine-tune the model accepted by both states in the Kansas v. Colorado lawsuit. Wolfe bristled at the notion that the problem is a small one. “Yes, it’s only 1,000 acre-feet now, but we want these rules in place as we move forward so people have certainty,” Wolfe said. “We’re trying to avoid another compact violation, as we have continued to point out.”

The state has proposed two basic ways to account for how water use changes when improvements are added. The first would require farmers to show how they have reduced acreage or are bypassing flows to account for higher consumptive use because of increased efficiency. The second are blanket plans that cover wider areas using models to account for impacts over entire ditch systems or laterals.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Arkansas Valley: Lysimeter installations producing useful data

Here’s an update on Colorado State University’s lysimeter installation in the Arkansas Valley, from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

The devices are capable of measuring small changes in water on blocks of soil that will help determine how much water crops in the Arkansas Valley are using. That could help Colorado in its ongoing dispute with Kansas over how much water each state is entitled to under a 1948 compact as well as give farmers better information about how and when to irrigate. “We’re trying the best we can to measure consumptive use and account for all the factors that go into the equation,” said Lane Simmons, a research associate.

So far, there are not concrete results, although farmers who have toured the site are already optimistic that the research will prove what they instinctively believe – that Colorado has never gotten enough credit for its water use. Mike Bartolo, director of the research center, is careful to put the brakes on jumping to any conclusions. “It’s premature to make any conclusions,” Bartolo said. “We have one year of data and we don’t fully understand the dynamics. . . . After three or four years, we’ll have a clear picture of what’s happening with alfalfa.”

There are two lysimeters at the research center, which is about one mile east of Rocky Ford. The larger one, completed in 2007, weighs changes in a 10-feet by 10-feet cube of soil 8 feet deep. On a hot summer day, when evaporation is at its peak, there might be a change of 150 pounds in the 50-ton block. Scales connected to computers record the slightest change.

The smaller one is a reference lysimeter in a nearby field that is 5-feet by 5-feet and 8 feet deep. “It’s built for precision,” Simmons said, following a line on the computer in his office. “You can see it level off at night, then it goes down during the day, levels off again and spikes when there’s an irrigation.”[...]

To see the lysimeter itself, requires going through a metal hatch down a ladder in a 12-foot hole in the ground. The lysimeter sits on the sensitive scales, but there are also barrels to catch water as it makes its way through the soil and an array of tubes that can either vacuum water out or inject water into the sample…

Water comes into the cube either by precipitation or irrigation. It leaves through evaporation, transpiration (through growing plants) or seepage. By combining the weather data and the weight of the soil block, researchers can account for every drop. The scales can measure the changes day-in and day-out all year long…

The state is funding the research partly through a legal defense fund set up during the 1986 U.S. Supreme Court case filed by Kansas over the Arkansas River Compact. During the case, a special master sided with Kansas on the use of the Penman-Montieth equation in determining crop use. Rather than a simple mathematical formula, it uses actual crop data to determine consumptive use by plants. The problem is there is no hard data available for Colorado. The closest lysimeters are in Texas and Idaho, so the numbers in the equations now being used are only a good guess…

The data also can be used to calculate better numbers for crops other than alfalfa, which is used as the reference point in the model and is also the predominant crop in the Arkansas Valley. The numbers also are helpful in an ongoing study led by Colorado State University professor Tim Gates on salinity and water tables in the Arkansas Valley. “The evapotranspiration values of crops can have direct consequences to irrigation scheduling, water augmentation plans, interstate compacts and other farm management plans,” Simmons explained. “More accurate determinations of ET values can lead to gained efficiencies in water use and irrigation management.”

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

Upper Ark: Expansion of satellite monitoring system on tap

Update: I mistyped Mr. Sering’s name in the original as Rod. Of course it’s Ron. My bad.

The Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District is set to expand their satellite monitoring of reservoirs this year, according to a report by Ron Sering writing for The Mountain Mail. From the article:

“We’re putting in 15 gages in reservoirs and stream gages in the upper district, all the way down to Lester Attebery Ditch right at the Pueblo County line,” district general manager Terry Scanga said. Data collection platforms will measure surface water conditions and in some cases, weather data. Information will be transmitted via satellite to district servers. “The data will be displayed on the Web site for anyone in the state,” Scanga said. The system is part of the National Weather Service Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite program.

North Fork Reservoir station, the first of the sites, has been functioning since August 2008…

The expanded program will begin with installation of the Lester Attebery station in Eastern Fremont County during May. July installations will include stations at Cottonwood Reservoir and Cottonwood Creek, with additional stations at Rainbow Lake and a second at North Fork. Additional stations are planned for installation during the fall.

New irrigation consumptive rules for the Arkansas Valley?

Here’s an update on the proposed new irrigation rules for the Arkansas Valley, from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

A special panel put together by State Engineer Dick Wolfe met Tuesday in Pueblo to review the latest draft of the rules, which incorporated some of [Kansas'] recommended changes, but took others off the table. “We’ll take these back to Kansas, and then meet with the committee again in April before bringing the rules to court in May,” Wolfe said. “I want the in-state users to have the last say.” Kansas attorney John Draper sent a letter to the state last week asking for about 10 changes in the rules. Some were simple matters of wording, while others attempted to get at more substantive changes. All are important to Colorado, because the main purpose of the new rules is to head off any objections from Kansas under the Arkansas River Compact about reduced return flows because of efficiency improvements.

The major concession Colorado will make is including technical information about the Irrigation System Analysis Model which the state is developing to measure how improvements affect return flows. The model could, in theory, change over time as new data develops. It would also be secondary to specific engineering reports on any irrigation system and allow flexibility in how the state engineer could apply it, committee members agreed.

Colorado will identify the rules as specific to compact compliance, not include gated pipe as an improvement because of enforcement difficulties, apply the rules only to post-1999 improvements, maintain historic compact limits on potential damage to Kansas and keep language about nonconsumptive use in the rules, McDonald said. Colorado will modify the rules regarding designated basins, conditions in the Purgatoire Conservancy District, a more structured approach to variances that makes it clear the rules apply and addition of Kansas to the notification list when irrigation changes are made…

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.