The Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District board approves a $2.9 million budget for 2012
November 29, 2011
From The Mountain Mail (Joe Stone):
Directors approved a budget resolution adopting the $2.9 million 2012 budget prepared by Swartz and Young Certified Public Accountants [November 10] during the monthly Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District board meeting in Salida. The total budget includes the general fund and the enterprise fund, and Rich Young of Swartz and Young said the 2012 budget includes $465,779 in projected property tax revenue, an increase of $2,000-3,000 compared with this year.
More Arkansas River basin coverage here.
The need for more storage in the Arkansas River basin was a discussion point at last week’s meeting of the UAWCD
October 17, 2011
From The Mountain Mail (Joe Stone):
District Manager Terry Scanga said his counterparts Jim Broderick, Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, and Jay Winner, Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District, attended the meeting, as did Alan Hamel, executive director with Pueblo Board of Water Works.
Scanga said the men agreed that more storage in the Arkansas basin is crucial for meeting future municipal and industrial water demand as identified by the Statewide Water Supply Initiative, which projects a significant supply shortfall by 2050.
Scanga also said new storage capacity would be needed if more Western Slope water were to be diverted into the Arkansas Basin and additional storage is needed to support effective environmental conservation along basin waterways.
The Multi-Use Project recently proposed by the Upper Arkansas district would increase basin storage capacity and has generated interest among other conservancy districts and municipal water providers, Scanga said.
More Arkansas River basin coverage here.
Results of a $42,000 study of Upper Arkansas River streamflows show the need for increased communication and more storage
October 14, 2011
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
Those conclusions are the result of a $42,000 study of the Upper Arkansas River by Paul Flack, a former hydrologist for the Arkansas Headwaters Recreation area, who was contracted last year under a grant sponsored by the Southeastern Colorado and Upper Arkansas water conservancy districts. Flack shared some conclusions of his study Wednesday with the Arkansas Basin Roundtable, saying there is a need for all of the users who are concerned about flows in the upper basin to get together to reach solutions. In addition, about 20,000 acre-feet of new reservoir storage is needed to meet all the needs.
The Upper Arkansas has, for years, become a complicated operation as water users have tried to balance releases from Turquoise and Twin Lakes and levels in Lake Pueblo with flows for recreation and fish.
Flows also have to be kept in check below Turquoise in the Lake Fork watershed to avoid disturbing old mine tailings that could leach heavy metals into the Arkansas River…
Chaffee County recreational in-channel diversion rights, which support boat courses in Buena Vista and Salida, are problematic because they depend on other river operations…
Flows in the river to meet the needs of fish, a component of a 20-year-old voluntary flow agreement among several agencies, could be a potential source of conflict. “The fishing flow can be in opposition to the needs of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project,” Flack said.
At Lake Pueblo, Flack looked at the possibility of changing the timing of spring releases for if-and-when or winter water storage accounts. “There could be significant water savings, up to thousands of acre-feet,” he said. “But, there would be a ripple effect upstream.”[...]
Adding 20,000 acre-feet of storage is needed to smoothly operate the increasingly complex river system. Planning should involve those affected, and not just with phone calls to Reclamation in an emergency, Flack said.
More Arkansas River basin coverage here.
From The Mountain Mail Joe Stone:
Terry Scanga, conservancy district manager, said committee members identified several possible options that would support a concept of developing water storage at a variety of locations to benefit multiple Arkansas River basin water users. Because of the cost of developing this type of storage system, Scanga said the project would require collaboration…
Scanga said response to the idea was “enthusiastic.” The concept is appealing, he said, because it would provide flexibility allowing participating entities to store water closer to the point of use instead of in large, distant reservoirs…
As a result of the meeting, Scanga said two committees were formed. One will investigate possible organizational structure for the coalition and another to create a “white paper” outlining things such as mission and principles of the coalition…
He said potential storage sites include reservoirs, gravel pits and alluvial aquifers in which water could be stored underground.
More Arkansas River basin coverage here.
The Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District board voted 13-1 against expansion of federal wilderness areas in the Arkansas River basin
August 21, 2011
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
At issue is a bill by Diana DeGette, D-Colo., to create additional Colorado wilderness areas, as well as wild lands and wilderness study designations approved by Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar. The federal legislation has been reintroduced several times without success.
The [Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District] believes any of those actions could prevent water development. “Development of storage or enlargement of existing storage and other beneficial uses of water on streams that are included in these wilderness designations, such as Grape, Badger or Beaver Creeks, will be precluded as a consequence,” Upper Ark chairman Glenn Everett said.
The Southeastern District still has conditional decrees for canals that could serve hydroelectric power generation. The canals haven’t been built, but could be in the future, explained Bob Hamilton, engineering supervisor for the district.
Most board members agreed, except for Reed Dils. “In my mind, considering what’s going to happen to the legislation, we should do nothing at all,” Dils said. “I support wilderness legislation.”
More Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District coverage here.
From the Wet Mountain Tribune (Nora Drenner):
The ad hoc committee determined there is no immediate need for any new water augmentation in the county. The committee used U.S Census Bureau statistics to determine there would be no need for any new water augmentation plan within the next ten years. The projected growth the unincorporated portion of the county for the next ten years, said the committee, is 63-to 99 new households, which is less than two percent a year.
Also, said committee members, the trend for those newcomers is to buy existing homes instead of vacant land, according to recent Custer County Sales Transaction History statistics.
In conclusion, the ad hoc committee said they would be making recommendations to the county commissioners:
–The county continue to work with the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District to address potential water needs and to insure county conditions are included in any new augmentation plan being considered.
–The commissioners become more informed and proactive in regards to local water issues.
–The commissioners convene the ad hoc committee as needed to re-evaluate the situation.
–The commissioners continue to support the current U.S. Geological Survey organization’s survey of some 60 wells in the county.Those recommendations will be presented during the commissioners meeting slated for…Thursday, June 30.
More Custer County coverage here.
Salida City Councilman Jay Moore was appointed to fill the Division 2 (School District R-32-J) directorship vacated by Everett. Moore and three re-appointed directors were sworn in at the meeting.
The re-appointed directors are:
• Tim Canterbury, Division 1 – area encompassed by School District RE-3.
• Bob Senderhauf, Division 4 – Custer County.
• John Sandefur, Division 6, Seat B – area encompassed by School District RE-2, excluding the part of RE-2 within Custer County.
After the swearing in, Bob Senderhauf was elected chairman, Tim Canterbury was elected vice chairman, Greg Felt was re-elected secretary, and Jim McCormick was re-elected treasurer. The new officers all expressed appreciation for Everett’s service to the conservancy district…
District Manager Terry Scanga discussed preliminary efforts to form a coalition in the Upper Arkansas Valley to construct new water storage vessels or enlarge existing ones. “It’s time to formalize that coalition and move forward,” Scanga said, based on the need for augmentation plans in the upper Arkansas basin.
More Upper Arkansas River Water Conservancy District coverage here.
There are four seats open for directors of the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District
April 28, 2011
From The Mountain Mail (Joe Stone):
Expiring terms are: Division 1, Fremont County School District RE-3, Timothy Canterbury; Division 2, Chaffee County School District R-32-J, chairman Glenn Everett; Division 4, Custer County, vice chairman Robert Senderhauf; and Division 6, Fremont County School District RE-2, John Sandefur.
Property owners at least 18 years old who have lived in one of those divisions at least one year may apply for appointment to the directorship for the division in which they live. Terms begin June 1 and continue four years. Applicants should have backgrounds reflecting agricultural, municipal, industrial or other interests in beneficial water use within conservancy district boundaries.
More Arkansas River basin coverage here.
Custer County: Commissioners agree to give a fresh look at the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District’s proposed augmentation plan for the county
February 13, 2011
From the Wet Mountain Tribune (Nora Drenner):
On Jan. 19 commissioners Lynn Attebery, Jim Austin and Allen Butler recapped the water forum held here on Jan. 15, and decided to meet with the county’s planning commission chair and co-chair to discuss the viability of the planning commission investigating the feasibility of the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District bringing a water augmentation plan to the county and making a recommendation to that effect to the commissioners. That meeting with the two county planning commission members – chairman Vic Barnes and vice-chair Keith Hood – took place during the Jan. 31 commissioners’ regular meeting. Following a lengthy discussion, with Barnes and Hood agreeing that the planning commission’s role should be to gather data only, the county commissioners decided to discuss the matter with county attorney John Naylor before making a final decision regarding the planning commission’s role, if any. Also during the Jan 19 meeting, commissioner Austin made a motion to send a letter to the UAWCD stating the county commissioners were not to blame for UAWCD’s recent decision to pull its proposed blanket water augmentation plan for Custer County from water court. Instead, said Austin, the commissioners objected because the UAWCD did not honor its agreement with the former county commissioners. That agreement, noted Austin, was that the commissioners be allowed to review the water augmentation proposal before UAWCD submitted it. “That didn’t happen,” said Austin.
Upper Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District board meeting recap
January 17, 2011
From The Mountain Mail (Joe Stone):
Witte said he believes the vast majority of seep water affected by the new rules is in southeast Colorado “because there are big ditch companies out there with large canals that cross dry arroyos.” Witte explained water from the big ditches seeped into arroyos through time and people claimed rights to that water instead of allowing it to return to the river. Because seep rights are more recent or junior rights, failure to administer them under the priority system has deprived senior rights holders of their water – particularly in the Upper Arkansas River Basin, Witte said. “I’m absolutely convinced we’re doing the right thing,” Witte said, adding he sees no basis for distinguishing between ditch seepage and natural springs.
On a separate topic, Witte said water storage in the basin is down about 15 percent because of dry fall weather. He said an environmental impact statement process is under way for the Arkansas Valley Conduit.
More Arkansas River basin coverage here.
Custer County augmentation plan update
December 30, 2010
From The Wet Mountain Tribune (Nora Drenner):
If all goes according to plan, the Custer County commissioners and Upper Arkansas Conservancy District will meet after the first of the year to talk about the implementation of a blanket water augmentation plan for the county.
Custer County: The Upper Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District withdraws its proposed blanket augmentation plan
November 26, 2010
Here’s an in-depth look at the Upper Ark’s augmentation attempts for Custer County from Nora Drenner writing for The Wet Mountain Tribune. From the article:
In a phone interview with the Tribune following UAWCD’s decision on Friday, Nov. 19, to withdraw its proposed plan, [Upper Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District Manager Terry Scanga] said the UAWCD board of directors took the action due to opposition from the Custer County commissioners and others within the community. He also said he felt the concerns raised by the commissioners and others were due to a lack of understanding in regards to how a water augmentation plan works and as such UAWCD would strive to educate Custer County residents and elected officials.
Scanga also said the UAWCD hoped to sit down with the Custer County commissioners in the near future to hash out a plan to bring a water augmentation plan back on the table.
Scanga also said a memorandum of understanding outlining all details would be signed by the UAWCD and commissioners before a proposed water plan would be submitted to water court.
Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy board meeting recap
October 18, 2010
From The Mountain Mail (Joe Stone):
The act would designate 850,000 additional wilderness acres in Colorado at 34 sites, including six in the Upper Arkansas River Basin and three along streams of “particular importance to the Upper Arkansas region,” district manager Terry Scanga said.
He identified the three tributaries as Beaver, Badger and Grape creeks and presented a letter from attorney John Hill describing negative impacts of the wilderness designation on water rights in those areas. All are downstream from developed areas. Hill wrote that wilderness designation would require the Secretary of Interior to claim all unappropriated water in these areas for in-stream flow, which “would preclude any future appropriations upstream of the wilderness area.”
In the case of Grape Creek, Hill wrote, “The proposed wilderness area … would significantly impact the operating regimen of DeWeese Reservoir.”[...]
Tim Canterbury, district board member and immediate past president of the Colorado Cattlemen’s Association, said he recently spent four days in Washington on behalf of cattlemen urging DeGette to “go back and rewrite the implementation” that directly affects cattle grazers, water districts and other water users. “She said, ‘Absolutely not,’” Canterbury reported. “We (the association) are not opposed to wilderness, but to the effects on cattle grazing … . Since she’s not willing to talk about it, we have to oppose this.” Canterbury added, “The agencies have no choice on implementation, and that’s the problem because it eliminates all activity.”
More Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District coverage here.
Upper Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District board meeting recap
September 19, 2010
From The Mountain Mail (Joe Stone):
During their business meeting before the [field trip to see new district gauges at Cottonwood Lake and Cottonwood Creek and a tour of Moltz Reservoir on Trout Creek], directors adopted a resolution opposing November ballot Amendments 60 and 61 and Proposition 101.
Discussing the ballot initiatives, district manager Terry Scanga noted water projects are expensive and are generally financed using 30-year loans. Passage of the initiatives, Scanga said, would limit financial agreements to a maximum of 10 years, requiring increased revenue – primarily maintenance and storage fees – to pay off loans within 10 years. For augmentation certificate holders, Scanga said, fees would double from $150 to $300 per unit. For holders of multiple certificates such as Poncha Springs which has about 100, the increase would have significant impact, he said.
District consultant Ken Baker and director Greg Felt suggested the district has obligation notify certificate holders about fiscal consequences of the initiatives, but district legal counsel Julianne Woldridge said such notice isn’t allowed under current law.
District treasurer Jim McCormick, also a Salida City Councilman, said Salida will face a budget shortfall of $250,000 if the initiatives pass…
In other business, directors:
• Learned of a feasibility study for installation of a hydro-electric generating system on DeWeese Reservoir.
• Learned from the treasurer’s report the district general fund has $178,868.15.
• A legislative update from Ken Baker showed calls on the Colorado River are approaching the point they could affect transmountain water diversions into the Arkansas River.
• Heard a report about the Colorado Water Congress summer conference
• Discussed dates and times of upcoming water-related events, including “Managing the Politics of Water,” the Sept. 30 annual conference of Colorado Water Officials Association at Salida SteamPlant.
Other events included the Oct. 1 State Engineer’s Forum at Salida SteamPlant, a Sept. 24 watershed meeting in the district Water Enterprise Building and a Sept. 22 meeting of the governor’s “right-to-float” task force in the Water Enterprise Building.
More Arkansas River Basin coverage here.
From The Mountain Mail:
Applications are being accepted for potential directors representing Division 2 and Division 3, (areas encompassed by School District R-32-J and R-31, both in Chaffee County, Division 4 (Custer County) and Division 5 (Fremont County School District RE-1). Any person 18 years or older owning property within the appropriate division of Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District and residing within the division for which appointment is sought, is eligible. Applicants should have backgrounds reflecting agricultural, municipal, industrial and other interests in the beneficial use of water within the district.
Terms of office will commence June 1 for a four-year term expiring June 1, 2014…
Applicants should submit letters in writing describing desire and qualifications to be on the board. Application deadline will be May 2. Applications should be made to all of the following:
• The Honorable Charles M. Barton, Chief District Judge, 11th Judicial District, P.O. Box 279, Salida, CO 81201.
• The Honorable O. John Kuenhold, Chief District Judge, 12th Judicial District, Alamosa County Courthouse, 702 Fourth St., Alamosa, CO 81101.
• The Honorable Kirk S. Samelson, Chief District Judge, 4th Judicial District, P.O. Box 2980, Colorado Springs, CO 80903.
More Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District coverage here and here.
Upper Ark data collection project moving along swimmingly
February 21, 2010
From The Mountain Mail (Audrey Gilpin):
The $815,000 project began in September 2008. Seven of 15 collection platforms have been installed as of Feb. 11, district general manager Terry Scanga said. Using Campbell Scientific Equipment of Utah, platforms measure surface water and will be used for reservoir regulation in connection with filling and releasing. Data platforms on reservoirs will also have weather stations. A transmitter on the platform sends data via Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites, administered by the National Environmental Satellite Data Information Service. Scanga said measurements are collected every 15 seconds and are used with a computer program providing scenarios for water exchanges. The information, Scanga said, will help with reservoir operation and assist in exercising exchanges to storage without injury to water rights.
Data collection platforms are completed and on-line at North Fork Reservoir on the North Fork of the South Arkansas River, Lester-Attebery augmentation station in Fremont County, Cottonwood Reservoir on the South Fork of Cottonwood Creek; Rainbow Lake Reservoir, North Fork of the South Arkansas River gauge, Cottonwood Creek stream gauge near the hot springs and on the South Arkansas River below Tenassee Ditch. Scanga said the platform on the Tenassee Ditch cost $90,000. It will be administered by the state and was paid for jointly by Salida, Poncha Springs, Lower and Upper Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy districts and Mount Massive Lakes…
Additional platforms set for installation by September are the Texas Creek stream gauge in Fremont County, Trout Creek Ditch, Poncha Creek stream gauge, Gray’s Creek-O’Haver Reservoir, Boss Lake, South Arkansas River near Hydro No. I below Garfield, Deweese Reservoir in Custer County and the Grape Creek gauge in Custer County.
More Upper Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District coverage here.
Custer County looking closely at Upper Ark’s augmentation plan
November 11, 2009
From the Wet Mountain Tribune (Nora Drenner):
On Tuesday, Aug. 11, county commissioners Lynn Attebery, Jim Austin and Carole Custer [hired] the law firm Duncan, Ostrander and Dingess of Denver to represent the county in its objection of the proposed water augmentation plan for Custer County submitted to water court by the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District in late June. Commissioner Austin will serve as contact person with the law firm. Commissioner Attebery also wanted to serve as contact person, however, commissioner Austin and Custer voted in favor of Austin. Also, attorney fees will be split with the city of Aurora as they have also retained the same law firm to handle the same matter. Austin noted Aurora is also objecting to the proposed water augmentation plan.
More Custer County coverage here.
Upper Ark gets first look at budget
October 12, 2009
From The Mountain Mail (Ron Sering):
Cost-cutting in several areas totaling about $79,000 is part of the preliminary 2010 budget presented to Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District directors Thursday. District general manager Terry Scanga presented the initial budget draft, proposing cost reduction in key areas, including legal and engineering. “I have told our engineering people and our attorneys to prioritize our projects a little better, to focus their activities and get our expenditures down,” Scanga said. “If this all works with our income numbers we have here, we should have about $30,000 in actual surplus revenue.” Included in district plans is money to hire a staff engineer. “I think we need to look in earnest to get somebody hired.” Scanga said. A public hearing regarding the final budget is tentatively set for the November board meeting.
More Upper Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District coverage here.
Buena Vista: Town board of trustees cooperating with Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District augmentation plan
October 4, 2009
From the Chaffee County Times (Kathy Davis):
In a letter to town administrator Sue Boyd dated Sept. 17, town water attorney Cindy Covell said that the UAWCD filed a water court application seeking approval of a global augmentation plan to allow the UAWCD to provide augmentation to wells, reservoirs and surface diversions that divert water from the upper Arkansas River and its tributaries, including Cottonwood Creek. This plan supplements UAWCD’s earlier plans and allows augmentation water to be provided from many sources, Covell said. The decree would allow UAWCD to have considerably more flexibility in the use of its water supplies, Covell said. The goal is to have an augmentation plan for UAWCD in which new users can subscribe without going to water court themselves, she said. According to the resolution approved by the trustees, the town originally filed a statement of opposition. Covell said the initial proposal had very few safeguards to assure protection of the town’s Cottonwood Creek water rights. The current proposed decree contains provisions that will provide greater protection of the town’s water rights than provided by the original proposals, she said. “The revised decree says that Buena Vista can monitor and make sure the town has accountability on decisions they make on augmentation,” town administrator Sue Boyd said. This is a tool, she said. Covell cautioned that the town must pay attention to this plan to make sure that it is operated properly. The plan may also result in the availability of water supplies for other projects. Town water engineer Patricia Flood of Wright Water Engineers has also reviewed the proposed decree and the technical issues involved in this proposed augmentation plan, Covell said.
More Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District coverage here.
Runoff news
September 8, 2009
From The Mountain Mail (Ron Sering):
The Arkansas River reached its low summer flow at about 235 cubic feet per second late Friday at the Wellsville gauge – the lowest since March…Although low water makes boating difficult, “This is actually very favorable for the fish,” Greg Policky, aquatic biologist for the Colorado Division of Wildlife, said. “They don’t have to fight the current.” Low water enables fish to feed efficiently, he said and added it is especially favorable for brown trout. “It will put them in good shape for the fall spawning season. Flow between 250-400 cfs is optimum for fishing,” Policky said.”
More Arkansas Basin coverage here.
Upper Arkansas River augmentation plan update
September 6, 2009
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
A blanket augmentation plan for the Upper Arkansas River is being extended to include portions of Custer County…
“This is the augmentation plan we already have, but includes Texas Creek and Grape Creek,” said Terry Scanga, general manager of the Upper Ark district. “It saves the water rights owners the expense of $50,000-$150,000 to file their own augmentation plan.” An augmentation plan assures that water will be released to the river to make up for out-of-priority depletions. Water usually is released from storage to make up for well-pumping or surface diversions at times when the water is needed. “The benefit to the district is that it puts a plan in place to protect the senior water rights,” Scanga said. The plan touches other water operations in the Arkansas Valley and attracted the attention of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District last week, which voted to enter the case.
More Upper Ark coverage here.
Lee Hart continues her coverage in the Salida Citizen of the Chaffee County Commissioners deliberations over Nestlé Water’s Chaffee County Project 1041 permit.
First up is a long post about the lack of discussion about climate change in the debate over Nestlé’s plans to truck 200 acre-feet or so of water out of basin to Denver for bottling. Read the whole article, here are a couple of excerpts:
Yet here in Chaffee County, conservation and climate change didn’t merit so much as a passing mention as the Board of County Commissioners began deliberations on a multi-decade commercial water harvesting proposal, even as an overwhelming majority of scientific studies anticipate a reduction of total water supply by the mid-21st century is likely to exacerbate competition for over-allocated water resources especially in the fast-growing West. The county’s own consultants, Colorado National Heritage Progam, cautioned commissioners: “In the interest of maintaining the wetland plant communities, any proposed development plan that impacts water resources should take into consideration global climate change.” Yesterday, CNHP ecologist Delia Malone, writing as a private citizen, spoke out on what she called the commissioners’ “short-sightedness” in dismissing climate change from deliberations on the water harvesting project proposed by Nestle Waters North America. Without a trace of ambiguity, a 2008 report by Western Water Assessment asserts, “Climate change will affect Colorado’s use and distribution of water.” The report notes that “changes in long-term precipitation and soil moisture can affect groundwater recharge rates; coupled with demand issues this may mean greater pressure on groundwater resources.”[...]
As inextricably as hyrdrogen is linked to oxygen at water’s most basic level, so too it seems the scientific community believes climate change must be factored into any decision-making that impacts natural resources. “Basically anybody in 2009 who is thinking about water resources, water planning, water supply . . . if they’re not thinking about climate change, they’re missing the mark,” explained scientist John Katzenberger, executive director of the Aspen Global Change Institute. Katzenberger was also a contributor to a 2008 report published by the National Resources Defense Council and the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization entitled, “Hotter and Drier, The West’s Changed Climate.”
Hart and the Salida Citizen are running a letter sent to the Chaffee County Commissioners from Ecologist Delia Malone. From the article:
Regardless of all the good, hard data out there, Malone lamented the commissioners dismissing the role of climate change in their deliberations about Nestle. Indeed, countless scientific books and research papers from all corners of the globe have written about the certainty of impending water shortages due to climate change that is already measurable…“Accessible water is rare and for Chaffee County to just give it away is really short-sighted,” Malone said. “You can’t get it back and when you really need it, it will be too late.”
Here’s the next part of Lee Hart’s recap of the July 1 meeting of the Chaffee County Commissioners working meeting for Nestlé’s Chaffee County Project. She writes:
Commissioner Tim Glenn tried to explain the gravity of Scanga’s testimony to fellow commissioners who either didn’t seem to understand the intricacies of water law and prior appropriation or simply did not share Glenn’s concerns. Glenn noted it was Scanga’s role to go “to bat for every water right and ag producer” in the valley and that he found Scanga’s testimony “fairly compelling.”[...]
“If you have a senior water right (as Aurora does), you can take it unless something in writing says you can’t take it,” Glenn explained to his fellow commissioners. Glenn said he’d feel better if Nestle’s augmentation came from a local entity that would probably care more about protecting local water resources than Aurora. Alternatively, Glenn suggested getting an agreement in writing that Aurora won’t draw down depletions and invoke its ability to exchange in a drought year and will only use water sources outside the Arkansas River Valley to supplement any municipal shortfalls created by the Nestle lease. But Glenn, always the pragmatist, said, “I seriously doubt that could happen.”
It’s really pretty simple. Aurora is leasing Twin Lakes water to Nestlé. The Twin Lakes decrees are pretty senior in priority. In times of low water — say, a drought — the river is governed by calls in any given stretch. Calls are made when someone with a decreed water right asks for their water. If current demand in that stretch exceeds the volume of water called for, water is doled out in order of priority, oldest first. So, again in a given stretch, a decreed party might just fall out of priority. This is determined by the decree and ditch company or project rules. Ditch companies generally allocate water equally — so much water per share.
The water that Aurora is leasing to Nestlé is for augmentation. The water will be released from storage at Twin Lakes to the Arkansas mainstem to pay the river for the water that Nestlé plans to pump at Hagen Spring. They’ll always pay this water to the river unless they fall out of priority which has been rare. Remember, Twin Lakes water comes from the rainy side of Colorado. The folks that will be effected in a drought are those junior to Aurora’s Twin Lakes rights.
Nestlé plans to truck 200 acre-feet or so of spring water per year to Denver for bottling.
From The Mountain Mail (Ron Sering):
Three returning directors and a new one were sworn in Thursday during the regular Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District meeting in Salida. Taking the oath of office for four year terms were returning directors Jeff Ollinger of Chaffee County and Tom French and William McGuire, both of Fremont County. Tom Goodwin of Fremont County, appointed by a panel of three district judges, was sworn to the at-large seat vacated by Pat Alderton of Poncha Springs. Goodwin is former Bureau of Land Management field office manager and U.S. Forest Service district ranger for the Saguache district field office. He retired from the Forest Service in 2007. Goodwin is the son of former UAWCD member and long-time board chairman Denzel Goodwin.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
From the Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka/Tracy Harmon):
Goodwin, a retired district ranger with the U.S. Forest Service, is the son of Denzel Goodwin, a longtime Fremont County rancher who was instrumental in forming the district and was a member of the board for many years.
Three other directors were reappointed for four-year terms: Tom French of Howard, Jeff Ollinger of Buena Vista and William McGuire of Penrose. They will serve with Glenn Everett of Salida, Robert Senderhauf of Westcliffe, Timothy Canterbury of Howard, Gregory Felt of Salida, Bill Donley of Westcliffe, Frank McMurray of Nathrop, Bill Jackson of Canon City, Mannie Colon of Canon City and John Sandefur of Penrose. The district, formed in 1979, represents water interests in Fremont, Custer and Chaffee counties and board appointments follow the boundaries of school districts in the three counties. Its purpose is to protect and secure water in the Arkansas River Valley west of Pueblo…
Judges making the appointments were Kirk Samuelson, chief of the 4th district; C.M. Barton, chief of the 11th district; and O. John Kuenhold, chief of the 12th district.
