The CWCB plans to roll Flaming Gorge Pipeline analysis in with other IBCC reviews for transmountain diversions #coriver

Here’s an article from last week that deals with the demise of the Flaming Gorge Task Force. It ran in the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel and was written by Gary Harmon.

From The River Blog (Jessie Thomas-Blate):

Last year, American Rivers listed the Green River as #2 on our annual list of America’s Most Endangered Rivers®, due to the potential impact of this pipeline on the river, the recreation economy, and the water supply for the lower Colorado River Basin…

Recently, a coalition of 700 business owners called Protect the Flows commissioned a poll that found 84% of West Slope residents and 52% of metro Denver-area residents oppose building additional water pipelines across the mountains. In fact, 76% of Colorado residents think that the solution lies in using water in smarter and more efficient ways, with less waste…

The Green River is a paddler’s paradise. In May 2012, Steve Markle with O.A.R.S. told us why paddlers love the Green River so much. Then in August, Matt Rice, our Director of Colorado Conservation, told us about his trip fishing the Green, and the big trout, beautiful scenery, and solitude he found there. Finally, Scott Willoughby with the Denver Post gives a description of the river that makes you jealous if you don’t have easy access to this trout oasis (even if you aren’t an avid fisherman!).

It is no wonder so many people care about preserving adequate water flows in the Green River. It not only provides essential water and cash flow for West Slope towns, but also a great adventure for the citizens of Colorado and beyond.

More Flaming Gorge Pipeline coverage here and here.

Ongoing Research Illustrates Benefits of Acequias

From the New Mexico Acequia Association (Quita Ortiz):

For the past decade, Dr. Sam Fernald, a watershed management professor in the Range Sciences Department at New Mexico State University, has led an effort to research acequias, New Mexico’s centuries-old irrigation and water governance system, in the community of Alcalde in Rio Arriba County, specifically surrounding the hydrology characteristics of acequias and how they interact with shallow groundwater. This acequia hydrology research dates back to the early 2000’s and a few years later a land use change analysis in Alcalde was incorporated into Dr. Fernald’s hydrology research to gain a better understanding of how land use change can impact water management, riparian ecosystems, and acequia culture. Knowing that acequias were at particular risk due to increasing urbanization pressures and the potential impacts on actual water use, water quality, and riparian vegetation along irrigation ditches and streams, the connections between land use and water management were apparent.

Dr. Fernald’s early hydrology studies were promising for acequias, indicating a reciprocal relationship between flood irrigating and groundwater recharge as well as contributing to the riparian vegetation in our communities, generating ecosystem services by providing a diverse habitat for wildlife. He’s been persistent at obtaining funds to continue and expand this research and was successful in obtaining a grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF), which is currently funding a four-year multidisciplinary research effort to model the sustainability of acequias. This study is taking acequias into account as holistic systems that link water, environment, and cultural livelihood. This research aims to understand how and why acequias have remained resilient in face of urbanization, ever increasing water demands, and climate change. Project partners include NMSU, UNM, New Mexico Tech, Sandia Laboratories, and the New Mexico Acequia Association.

The human aspect of acequias has now become part of this process and researchers are now studying acequias in a much more inclusive manner, characterizing them as the sustainable water management systems that they embody. Furthermore, they’re being researched on a larger geographic scale by establishing the link between the valleys that acequias irrigate and their upland watershed, not only as the source of water but also taking into account the land base from which acequia users harvest timber and graze livestock.

The current research effort, which is now in its third year, expanded the study site from Alcalde to also include acequias along the El Rito (Rio Chama tributary) and Rio Hondo (Rio Grande tributary) stream systems in north central New Mexico. All three sites support acequia-related activities, but they differ in their physical geography, water availability, and spatial patterns such as proximity to urban centers.

There are number of threats to acequia communities that have been identified including population growth, climate change, and policies that regulate land and water resources. Acequias have a good track record for their ability to adapt to changes that have been induced largely by urbanization and modified economic structures. But they are now facing challenges with increased intensity and complexity. Examples include prolonged drought and determined water markets aimed at transferring water out of rural communities to other uses.

Using different modeling approaches, the hydrology results show that seepage from earthen ditches and field percolation recharge the shallow aquifer. This, in turn, becomes groundwater flow for future use as it holds the water upstream for a longer period. Floodplain models indicate that groundwater recharge would be affected if earthen canals and their related activities were eliminated, reducing overall aquifer recharge. So even though there are technologies that are intended to conserve water, they don’t address the fact that there’s a key connection between surface and groundwater supplies. Drip irrigation, for example, might conserve upfront water use, but it’s also allowing more water to run downstream sooner.

Dr. José Rivera, a UNM professor at the School of Architecture and Planning, has led the sociocultural research surrounding this study and was assisted by retired UNM professor, Dr. Sylvia Rodriguez, and the New Mexico Acequia Association staff. Focus groups were conducted in summer 2012 at the different study sites and gleaned a wealth of sociocultural data surrounding acequia water sharing and distribution customs; water governance; food, seed and agriculture traditions; land use and land ownership trends; livestock and ranching trends; and mutualism, which involves community cohesion such as shared cultural values and participation in other community endeavors (for example, livestock associations and mutual domestic water associations). In other words, this facet of the research attempts to understand why acequias maintain their traditions despite the many external forces working against rural livelihoods.

Other data that were incorporated into this study include economics and land use. Future steps include integrating all of the quantifiable data into a model which can then simulate different scenarios that depict the sustainability of acequias. This involves using the two major stressors, population growth and climate change, to determine amount of stress that would impose irreversible impacts to the entire system. Hopefully this data will provide acequias with a framework that assists them in recognizing steps that would help to evade potential negative scenarios. The goal of this research is to determine how acequias can provide insight into resource sustainability by understanding their capacity to adapt; and identify potential strategies for acequias to continue adapting to ongoing changes in the areas of economics, resource policy, and climate change.
From an academic perspective, we’re beginning to understand the relationship between acequia irrigation ditches and the natural environment at the regional watershed scale. Most acequia research endeavors to date have been segregated into different fields—policy, local water governance, water rights adjudication, water transfers, land use change, agricultural economics, etc. However, this study is the first in New Mexico that views acequias as the complex system that they symbolize. An acequia is not simply an irrigation ditch; rather it represents a multifaceted system characterized by humans that have historically worked with the environment in a sustainable manner by combining water governance, agriculture, resource management, and cultural identity.

As part of this NSF-funded research effort, the group will host a symposium, “Acequias and the Future of Resilience in Global Perspective” which is being coordinated by Dr. Sylvia Rodriguez. It will bring together scholars from around the world to share their research on similar human-environment systems. The symposium will be followed by a workshop featuring panelists that are working on acequias issues in New Mexico to discuss the future steps that are necessary regarding research and policy to ensure ongoing acequia resiliency. It will be held at the Las Cruces Convention Center on March 2nd and 3rd. To register for this event visit http://globalperspectives2013.wrri.nmsu.edu/. If you have questions about this event or this project, feel free to contact NMAA.

More Rio Grande River Basin coverage here.

Twin Lakes Reservoir and Irrigation Canal Co. is the lone objector standing in Pitkin County instream flow change case

Change of water rights cases often drag on until all parties come to agreement and stipulate out. In many cases objectors raise issues with the proposed change that can only be settled at trial in water court. It looks like a change case by Pitkin County — to leave agricultural water in the stream for riparian purposes — is heading to court because Colorado Springs wants to make sure that the change won’t leave them water short at Twin Lakes if there is a rebound call from downstream seniors or a Colorado River Compact call. Here’s an in-depth look at the issue from Brent Gardner-Smith writing for Aspen Journalism. Click through and read the whole article for the great detail and analysis along with graphics that help illustrate the issues at hand. Here’s an excerpt:

Pitkin County and the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) are finding it’s not easy to leave water in a river for environmental purposes.

The two entities have been working since mid-2010 to reach agreements with various opponents to a plan that would leave 4.3 cubic feet per second (cfs) of county water in lower Maroon Creek and the Roaring Fork River, instead of diverting it for irrigation purposes to the Stapleton Brothers Ditch near the base of Tiehack.

They’ve reached agreements with 10 opponents so far, but the 11th, an entity controlled by the city of Colorado Springs called the Twin Lakes Reservoir and Canal Co., is proving to be challenging.

On Thursday, attorneys for Pitkin County asked a judge in Division 5 Water Court in Glenwood Springs to set a trial date as the parties have not yet resolved their differences. Judge James Boyd set the five-day trial for Feb. 3, 2014. The case number is 10CW-184.

The trial results from an agreement between Pitkin County and the Colorado Water Conservation Board that was announced in 2009.

Mr. Gardner-Smith has published a shorter version of the story in conjunction with the Aspen Daily News. Here’s an excerpt:

“We have been in active settlement discussions with the applicants and have every intention of reaching agreement prior to trial,” said Kevin Lusk, a principal with Colorado Springs Utilities, the city’s water utility that controls Twin Lakes. “We believe that we have made significant progress and do not feel that the remaining issues are in any way insurmountable.”

Lusk also serves as president of the Twin Lakes Reservoir and Canal Co., which diverts significant amounts of water off the top of the Roaring Fork River basin each year, sending it in tunnels underneath the Continental Divide to Twin Lakes and eventually the Front Range.

“Twin Lakes has a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders to protect its interests,” Lusk said. “Because of this, Twin Lakes routinely objects to water rights cases on the Roaring Fork when they are of significant size or if there is significant precedent involved.”

Lusk said Twin Lakes is concerned that a change to the county’s water right from irrigation to an instream-flow right may indirectly lead to a situation where Twin Lakes is allowed to divert less water off the top of the Roaring Fork River basin.

But the county and state say there will be no injury to Colorado Springs’ water rights if the 4.3 cfs is left in the river instead of being used for irrigation, especially as monthly flow limits have been placed on the water right consistent with its historic use.

“The maximum and average uses proposed … will prevent any expansion of use of the Stapleton Brothers Ditch water right,” stated engineers from Bishop-Brogden Associates, Inc., the firm working with the county and the CWCB, in a report submitted to the court.

The county owns a total of 8 cfs of water in the Stapleton Brothers Ditch, which diverts that amount and more from Maroon Creek near the base of Tiehack and takes it some 3 miles across the base of Buttermilk Mountain to Owl Creek.

The county’s water right in the Stapleton Brothers Ditch of 4.3 cfs has a 1904 priority date and was used by the Stapleton family to irrigate 163 acres of hay and alfalfa fields on land along Owl Creek.

Most of that land is now occupied by the lower half of the runway at the Aspen-Pitkin County Airport. And since the county no longer uses all of the water for irrigation, it wants to leave about half of it — or 4.3 cfs — in the river for the benefit of the riparian ecosystem.

If successful, Pitkin County would become the first entity in the state to legally leave its water in a river for environmental purposes via a long-term trust agreement with the CWCB, as allowed by a state law enacted in 200 via House Bill 08-1280.

“It is significant because it is the first long-term agreement since HB 1280,” said [Linda] Bassi of the CWCB.

More instream flow coverage here.

The USFS plans public hearings this spring over ownership of ski area water rights

From the Summit County Citizens Voice (Bob Berwyn):

After being rebuffed in federal court, the U.S. Forest Service will start anew at developing new water-rights language for ski area permits. The agency plans to start taking public input this spring on the new directive, which would clarify ownership of water rights on national forest lands…

The ski industry interpreted at least parts of the new directive as a direct grab of water rights that are properly administered under state water law. A year-long lawsuit ended in Dec. 2012 with a court telling the Forest Service it must use a public process to develop a new directive.

The court also said the Forest Service should consider economic impacts as part of the process. It didn’t rule on the substance of the Forest Service directive, but noted that the water-rights ownership issue seems to be unclear and based on several different versions of Forest Service directives and clauses.

Here’s my Colorado Central column from last April. I try to explain the issues around the permit requirements.

From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel:

The U.S. Forest Service will seek out public comment on plans to tie water rights and ski-area permits together. The process to gain public comment was the first since a federal judge rebuffed the Forest Service for failing to conduct a public process when it required ski areas to surrender water rights in exchange for the permits under which they operate on lands managed by the Forest Service.

Powderhorn Mountain Resort’s current ownership was the first to be required to sign over water rights when it purchased the ski area in 2011.

The National Ski Area Association sued the Forest Service last year and the resulting order called on the Forest Service to pursue greater public involvement in drafting a directive. “Establishing an inclusive process on this important issue will help meet long-term goals,” Rocky Mountain Regional Forester Daniel Jirón said on Monday as he testified to the Colorado Legislature. “Maintaining the water with the land will ensure a vibrant ski industry, and resilient and healthy national forests and mountain communities into the future.”

Critics of the requirement maintain, however, that it hampers ski resorts. “The reality is that anytime we look at the federal government taking over water rights, it diminishes the value of the ski area, it diminishes the ability of the ski area to operate fully because it’s at the mercy of the U.S. Forest Service,” said Bonnie Petersen, executive director of Club 20, the West Slope advocacy organization.

Club 20 also has voiced concern that federal agencies could require water rights in exchange for other uses of federal lands by ranchers, municipalities and others.

More water law coverage here.

CMU: ‘Learn all about water in February’ — Hannah Holm #coriver

From the Grand Junction Free Press (Hannah Holm):

What better way to spend three cold, dreary winter evenings than immersing yourself in water issues?

You’ll get your chance in February with the Water Center at CMU’s annual water course, which is intended to bring all interested citizens up to speed on how water is managed in our region, with particular attention to recent developments in water policy and management. The course will be held in the University Center Ballroom from 6 to 9 p.m. Feb. 11, 18 and 25 — all Mondays.

SESSION ONE – FEB. 11
Session one will focus on Colorado water law, history and culture. Kirsten Kurath, an attorney at Williams, Turner & Holmes, PC will open the session with an orientation to Colorado water law and what water rights issues are of most concern to Grand Valley water users. Then, Colorado Supreme Court Justice Gregory Hobbs will take the stage to discuss the culture and history of Colorado water.

In addition to being a judge, Hobbs is also a poet and the author of the book “Living the Four Corners: Colorado, Centennial State at the Headwaters,” which reviewer Tom I. Romero II described as “a collection of poems, oral testimony, multicultural teaching, inspired reflections, robust exchange, and legal reasoning about the great rivers and the varied people who comprise Colorado.”

SESSION TWO – FEB. 18
Session two will focus on cooperative initiatives for water management and river health. These include initiatives for salinity control, riparian restoration, canal hydropower and improving flows for native fish in the Dolores River. John Sottilare of the Bureau of Reclamation with discuss salinity control projects, which seek to keep irrigation water from leaching salt from our valley’s soils into the river, where they cause problems for farmers downstream.

Tamarisk Coalition staff will discuss their efforts to work with a wide variety of stakeholders to remove tamarisk along riverbanks and restore native vegetation. David Graf, with Colorado Parks & Wildlife, will discuss the Lower Dolores River Implementation, Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for Native Fish, which is the product of several years of discussions among numerous stakeholders.

SESSION THREE – FEB. 25
Session three will focus on current water policy issues. Chris Treese of the Colorado River District will give us a rundown of the water bills introduced in the state legislature this session, which include proposals on agricultural water conservation and the reuse of graywater (that’s water that’s already been used once in your house, somewhere other than the toilet). Then we’ll learn about how the statewide process to figure out how to fill an anticipated gap between water supply and demand from Jacob Bornstein, a staffer for the Colorado Water Conservation Board. We’ll finish off the evening with a discussion of new water quality monitoring requirements for oil and gas drilling.

So come out and join us! We’ll even feed you fruit and cookies while you learn. And keep you awake with coffee.

The cost is $45 for the whole series or $20/session. We will provide certificates of completion for those who attend the whole series, and are seeking accreditation to provide continuing education credits for lawyers, teachers, water system operators and Realtors. Scholarships are available for high school students and K-12 teachers, and admission is free for CMU students and employees. For complete details, go to http://www.coloradomesa.edu/watercenter or call the Water Center at 970-248-1968.

This is part of a series of articles coordinated by the Water Center at Colorado Mesa University in cooperation with the Colorado and Gunnison Basin Roundtables to raise awareness about water needs, uses and policies in our region. To learn more about the basin roundtables and statewide water planning, and to let the roundtables know what you think, go to http://www.coloradomesa.edu/WaterCenter.

From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Dave Buchanan):

Whether it’s simply a coincidence or divine intervention, the water course being offered next month by the Water Center at Colorado Mesa University comes at an opportune time. The three-seminar series on water law, policies and management begins Feb. 11 with other sessions Feb. 18 and 25.

It seems a lot of people last year would have profited from knowing more about how water policy, and specifically the doctrine of prior appropriation, decides who gets water in a year when there isn’t enough to go around.

Bob Hurford, state Division of Water Resources engineer for Division 4 in the Gunnison River Basin, said Thursday many people holding water rights were surprised last summer when the expected irrigation water never arrived. Speaking during Thursday’s Aspinall Unit operations meeting in Montrose, Hurford said it was people who had moved into the region within the past decade and hadn’t gone through a year of
under-supplied and over-appropriated water. “People were saying, ‘But I own water rights, why aren’t I getting any water?’ ” Hurford recalled. “They couldn’t understand why they didn’t have water and yet the farmers did.”

Hurford said the water shortages appeared much earlier than most people expected. “If you didn’t take your water before May 1, you probably weren’t getting it,” he said. “The Uncompahgre Valley was on call by May 2.”

It was particularly severe in the North Fork Valley, which Hurford called “extremely, highly over-appropriated,” where water rights dating to 1882 take precedence over those coming later. That means those using the Fire Mountain Canal, with 1934 water rights, saw its water dry up after mid-July. “People were outraged,” Hurford said. “But it’s because they didn’t understand how prior appropriation works.”

With this year’s water year shaping up as challenging or more so than 2012, the Water Center’s seminar series is bound to help. Information is available at http://www.coloradomesa.edu (http://www.coloradomesa.edu), click on Water Center.

More education coverage here.

Flaming Gorge Task Force’s phase one report is hot off the press

Click here to view the report and appendices A through F. Click here for appendices G through I. Thanks to Heather Bergman for sending them along in email. Here’s an excerpt from the report:

Recommendations

In the course of its work, the Committee has come to more fully understand and appreciate the gravity and risks of the status quo and the need to develop new supply1 solutions that balance the current and future consumptive and nonconsumptive needs of both slopes and all basins. The municipal gap on the Front Range is immediate, the dry-up of agriculture is real and certain, and the environmental and economic concerns are serious and numerous. In the process of becoming informed about and discussing the benefits and costs of a specific new supply project focused around Flaming Gorge, the Committee has identified a key threshold step that must happen in order to move beyond the status quo in developing any significant new supply solution: an immediate and focused conversation with each roundtable and state leaders at the table must begin, aimed at developing an agreement or agreements around how water supply needs around the state can be met. Our conclusion and consensus is that the conversation needs to be transparent and inclusive in order to arrive at consensus agreements that can lead to meaningful statewide-level water supply solutions. The immediate need for this robust, focused, transparent, and balanced conversation is at the heart of each of our recommendations.

The Committee has developed a consensus flow chart that identifies threshold steps and a process framework for moving forward with major new supply allocation from the Colorado River. The flow chart and the process it outlines suggests a pathway to achieving statewide consensus for a new supply project, based on roundtables defining the scope of a project, the IBCC and CWCB providing insight and approval, and project proponents or participants designing a project based on statewide consensus about the criteria of what characteristics and components are needed to be included into the design, implementation, and operation of a water project for that project to be considered a “good” project for Colorado. The flow chart is based on several assumptions:

The goal is to minimize the risk of a Compact call.

An M&I gap exists and needs to be filled. Some of the water needed to fill that gap may come from the Colorado River. That portion of the gap that is not satisfied by identified projects or processes, conservation, or new supply will likely come from the change of agricultural water to municipal and industrial use.

The current legal framework will apply.

All roundtables are affected by a new supply project.

This process would be voluntary. An inability to complete the process (all STOP signs in the complete framework) means that proponents revert to “business-as-usual” for building a new project.

More coverage from KUGR News:

A task force studying issues related to proposals to divert water from the Flaming Gorge Reservoir in Wyoming to Colorado says state leaders first need to agree on how Colorado’s water needs can be met. In a report to be presented to the Colorado Water Conservation Board, the Basin Roundtable Exploration Committee says questions that should be addressed include how Colorado can maximize its entitlements to Colorado River water without overdeveloping the river and who would finance a new water supply project. It also lists characteristics of “good” water supply projects, which it says shouldn’t reduce supplies to existing water users, for one. The report, released Wednesday, says there is an immediate gap between the Front Range demand for water and the supply and mentions “risks of the status quo.”

More Flaming Gorge Task Force coverage here.

‘We are living beyond our means, and the gap is greatest in the Lower Basin’ — said David Kanzer #coriver

From the Glenwood Springs Post Independent (Heather McGregor) via The Aspen Times:

“The bottom line is demand is ahead of supply. We are living beyond our means, and the gap is greatest in the Lower Basin,” said David Kanzer, senior water resources engineer for the Colorado River District.

Kanzer presented a summary of the Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study to the Colorado River District’s 15-member board during the board’s quarterly meeting held Tuesday in Glenwood Springs. The 1,500-page study was first released Dec. 12 at a multi-state water users meeting in Las Vegas.

After Kanzer’s presentation, the board convened a closed-door session to discuss the state of Colorado’s negotiation strategy prior to a seven-state meeting next week. Sitting in on the session were Jennifer Gimbel, director of the Colorado Water Conservation Board and the state’s chief water official, and Ted Kowalski, chief of the state water agency’s interstate division.

“We’ll be meeting in Las Vegas next week with the other basin states to figure out what do we do with this study,” Gimbel said.

The basin study was funded by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the seven Colorado River Basin states: the upper basin states of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico, and the lower basin states of Nevada, Arizona and California…

River flows from 1991 to 2010 past Lee’s Ferry, which is just downstream of Glen Canyon Dam in northern Arizona, averaged 13.7 million acre-feet per year…

Current water use in the basin is 16 million to 17.5 million acre-feet per year, Kanzer said, which includes water from tributaries that drain into the Colorado River below Lee’s Ferry.

The basin study shows that water use has overtopped supply for the past 10 years, and the gap is forecast to continue.

“By 2060, the gap is 3.2 million acre-feet a year, and possibly as much as 8 million acre-feet a year,” Kanzer said.

Lee’s Ferry flows are critical for the upper basin states, as the four states must first send enough water downstream to meet the lower basin’s allocations — 75 million acre-feet in any 10-year period — and can only use water over that amount. So as snowpack and rainfall declines, it will be upper basin users, and western Colorado in particular, that will face limits in water use…

The study evaluates many ways to increase water supply, such as importing water from other basins, cloudseeding, desalinization of seawater, water banking, land use management in watersheds, and changes in reservoir operations. It also looks at options for reducing demand through stepped up urban and agricultural conservation.

“Even with all these scenarios, there will still be times we cannot meet 75 in 10,” Kanzer said, referring to the downstream allocations. “The upper basin shortage risk is real. The Lee’s Ferry deficit is real.”

Moreover, he said, models that assume rising temperatures and changing weather patterns from climate change also forecast the year-to-year variability in streamflow to increase. In other words, there will still be very wet years, such as 2011, and very dry years such as 2002 and 2012, but the very dry years will occur more often in the future.

With the study now published following years of work, water officials are now focused on educating the wider public about the water supply shortfall that Western states will face in the coming decades.

Gimbel said the Colorado Water Conservation Board is planning a “road show” to present study findings in communities around the state, particularly in western Colorado, and on the Front Range, which is heavily dependent on water diversions from Western Slope rivers.

More Colorado River Basin coverage here and here.

Sterling: The Colorado Water Institute is studying groundwater issues in the South Platte River Basin

Here’s a recap of Monday’s meeting from David Martinez writing for the Sterling Journal-Advocate

…representatives from Colorado State University’s Colorado Water Institute spent 2 1/2 hours focusing on the South Platte River and its water tables. Over the past few years farmers along the river have had issues with rising groundwater disrupting crop growth, while residents in certain areas have dealt with flooding basements.

The Colorado Legislature, in response, passed Colorado House Bill 12-1278 in 2012 – a study of the South Platte alluvial aquifer by the CWI to present to the general assembly by Dec. 31.

Reagan Waskom, director of the CWI, said they started collecting data around the area in September. They’re searching for everything from historical water levels to climate factors to soil compositions, compiling their own data with those gathered from myriad groups and studies throughout the region. “It’s time for us to come out and more or less be accountable to you all to tell you what we’re doing,” Waskom said…

Recharge projects that deliver water back to surface right owners in the time, place and volume it would have originally reached the river have led to reports of high groundwater levels. The two locations primarily affected, according to CWI charts, are southwest Weld County and Logan County around the South Platte River.

Some think the problems are caused by excessive augmentation of aquifers and lack of groundwater pumping, while others think the issues are natural and that people are building in areas with naturally high water tables…

The study was approved to evaluate whether current water laws and rules in the South Platte River Basin both protect senior water rights and maximize beneficial use for surface and groundwater in the basin. But it’s also supposed to determine which areas within the basin’s high groundwater levels adversely impact and what causes the higher levels to begin with. It’s also supposed to show a base for implementation of measures to lessen adverse impacts in high groundwater areas. Waskom said CWI would first collect and organize date, the map the groundwater, evaluate the existing groundwater level analysis from the U.S. Geological Survey and educate the public and stakeholders…

Waskom said he isn’t in a rush to post data the group receives, especially if they don’t yet know what it means. But they’ll post a monthly status report, regardless. One community member asked if the study would look back far enough at the data. Waskom said they’d collect data as far back as they could (even into the 1940s), but the paucity of data from earlier years makes it difficult to use any of it effectively. He said it’d be hard to look at the whole basin from those numbers, though he’d like to if it were possible.

More South Platte River Basin coverage here and here.

2013 Colorado legislation: SB13-019 Promote Water Conservation

Update: Representative Fischer sent along the bill description in email:

Section 1 of the bill declares that increasing water use efficiency by appropriators promotes the maximum utilization of Colorado’s water resources and is in the public interest.

The amount of water that currently can be changed to a new type or place of use is limited by the amount of water that was historically consumed by the original type and place of use. Therefore, a water user has no incentive to reduce the amount of water diverted. Current law encourages the conservation of water in some contexts by eliminating from the determination of abandonment the period during which water is conserved under a variety of government-sponsored programs. However, in these contexts, the water conserved through a reduction in the application of the water to a beneficial use results in a reduction of consumptive use. Section 2 directs the water judge to disregard the decrease in use of water from such programs in its determinations of historical consumptive use in change of water right cases and adds to the list a decrease in water use to provide for compact compliance. Section 3 defines “conserved water”, and section 4 directs water judges to allow a change of water right for conserved water.

State Senator Gail Schwartz and State Representative Randy Fischer are sponsoring SB13-019: CONCERNING THE PROMOTION OF WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES. Representative Fischer told Coyote Gulch in email:

Basically, the bill would provide incentives for agricultural water users to conserve by not reducing their consumptive use credits for the amount they conserve.

More 2013 Colorado legislation coverage here. More conservation coverage here.

South Platte Basin: ‘Everyone understands the need for a solution…Hopefully this study can help give them that’ — Reagan Waskom

From The Greeley Tribune (Eric Brown):

At the very slight chance he had forgotten, water providers, users and experts reminded Reagan Waskom on Tuesday of the challenges he faces in studying groundwater in the South Platte River basin and having a full report to Colorado lawmakers by the end of this year. But Waskom also left the meeting at the Southwest Weld County Service Center “encouraged,” he said, as attendees on different sides of the contentious water issue provided suggestions and expressed a desire to work together going forward. The Colorado State University professor and engineer — who’s overseeing the CSU Colorado Water Institute’s ongoing study of groundwater and its interaction with surface flows — hosted the first public meeting on the study since it was initiated, when Gov. John Hickenlooper signed House Bill 1278 into law this past spring.

Much of the push for the groundwater study came from Weld County farmers who own curtailed or shutdown groundwater wells, along with area residents who’ve had flooded basements in recent years because of high groundwater levels. Some of them believe the state’s well augmentation requirements are too stringent. They say the combination of making farmers fully make up for their groundwater­pumping depletions, and the costly expense of doing so — preventing farmers from being able to pump some of their wells — has caused the aquifer to overflow in recent years.

Others, though, believe different factors, such as historically wet years in 2010 and 2011, have contributed to the rising groundwater levels and say the stringent augmentation requirements are needed to make sure surface flows are available for senior water users downstream.

Waskom now has the task of studying the South Platte basin’s groundwater to better find out what’s going on, and then giving a full report to state legislators before they convene for their 2014 session. While the study has been under way for months, Waskom did not discuss any of the Colorado Water Institute’s findings Tuesday, but said he plans to do so in the future, possibly within the next couple or few months.
Because Waskom and his staff have limited time and money to conduct the extensive endeavor, Waskom said he wants plenty of input from the public as he goes forward.

He received input aplenty Tuesday. The nearly 100 in attendance discussed the complexities of groundwater and surface flows. Geology, hydrology, climate and many other natural factors influence how groundwater pumping eventually affects streamflows, they all agreed.

Additionally, though, cities have been conserving more water in recent years and have plans to conserve more, which affects return flows to the river; farmers are shifting to more efficient irrigation systems, which continually changes how much water is percolating through the soil and into the aquifer; the rapid growth of non­native vegetation along the streams and rivers is affecting how much groundwater is getting to the river. Attendees stressed to Waskom that those complicated factors and many others, along with the effects of groundwater­pumping for irrigation, all need to be worked into the study.

But many also said, regardless of the study’s outcome, all water providers and users can work together better to get the more “beneficial use” from both groundwater and surface flows. There were suggestions of forming more water cooperatives, and building small­scale storage projects — instead of large­scale endeavors that cost more and take longer to permit — to store more water and also make it easier to exchange water with one another.

“Everyone understands the need for a solution,” Waskom said. “Hopefully this study can help give them that.”[...]

More meetings ahead

The public is invited to attend one of the two remaining meetings about the ongoing groundwater study in the South Platte Basin. The meetings are free and open to the public. They will be held from 6­8:30 p.m. on Monday at the Hays Student Center Ballroom at Northeast Junior College, 100 College Ave., in Sterling; and from 6­8:30 p.m. on Jan. 24 at Valley High School, 1001 Birch St., in Gilcrest.

For more information about the meetings or the study, visit www.cwi.colostate.edu/southplatte/index.html.

More South Platte River Basin coverage here and here.

South Platte River Basin: ‘We have to have an oversupply along the whole system’ — Bob Sakata

Here’s a recap of yesterday’s meeting about the South Platte River Basin groundwater study authorized last session by the legislature [HB12-1278], from Grace Hood writing for KUNC. Groundwater levels are rising, some say, due to the alluvial wells that have been shutdown and augmentation. Here’s an excerpt:

Reagan Waskom is director of the Colorado Water Institute, which hosted the event. He framed the issue this way:

“Are these the only areas in the basin? Is this beginning of a trend toward higher groundwater levels? Are we at the end of something? Was it a blip in time?”

Waskom is working with dozens of scientists, and aggregating data from as far back as the 1890’s to find the answer.

It’s something that matters to farmers like Robert Sakata. Speaking in a facilitated dialogue, Sakata explained he used to own and use wells connected to the South Platte. In the ’70s, he and other junior water rights holders were required to replace the water they used.

“We just felt like it wasn’t economically viable for us as a vegetable farmer to do that,” he said. “Our returns are usually between .5 to 1 percent. That additional cost we just couldn’t justify. So we ended up unhooking the wells.”

Fortunately for Sakata, he also owned surface water rights he could use to irrigate his crops. But other farmers weren’t as lucky. The drought of 2002 and a subsequent state Supreme Court decision in 2006 resulted in thousands of wells being curtailed and about 400 being shut down completely.

“That’s almost the analogy that I see in the state right now is that to make sure we’re not injuring every person along the way, we have to have an oversupply along the whole system,” said Sakata.

Meantime, Joe Frank with the Lower South Platte Water Conservancy District spoke of another reality: some of his water rights owners aren’t getting all the water they’re entitled to.

“Going into this next year, if we continue this drought, we’re going to see severe curtailment,” he said. “So ultimately it comes down to water supply. We’re water short in this basin. We need to work together to develop that supply.”[...]

The meeting raised a lot more questions than it answered for the more than 100 who attended. But Weld County Commissioner Sean Conway said it was a good beginning.

“Everyone who spoke here today said the big problem was we aren’t taking advantage of our compacts to capture the necessary water that we’re going to need as a state over the next 50 years for agriculture, municipal use.”

Conway is referring to the Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP), which would build two water storage reservoirs in the region. In recent years it’s become a hotly contested project in the area. Despite the intractable nature of these water debates, the Colorado Water Institute’s Reagan Waskom said he’s determined to make the South Platte River study meaningful.

More meetings are planned, click here.

More 2012 Colorado legislation coverage here. More South Platte River Basin coverage here. More coverage of the shutdown of irrigation wells in the basin here.

Wild and Scenic designation for the Crystal River?

Here’s an in-depth report from Aspen Journalism (Brent Gardner-Smith). Click through for all the detail and some great photos, as well. Here’s an excerpt:

Wild and Scenic status, which ultimately requires an act of Congress to obtain, prevents a federal agency from approving, or funding, a new dam or reservoir on a Wild and Scenic-designated river.

And that’s one big reason why Pitkin County, the Roaring Fork Conservancy, the Crystal Valley Environmental Protection Association (CVEPA) and American Rivers are exploring Wild and Scenic status for the Crystal — because it would likely block a potential dam and reservoir from being built at Placita, an old coal town between Marble and Redstone…

The West Divide Water Conservancy District and the Colorado River District are fighting to retain conditional water rights that could allow for a dam across the Crystal and a 4,000-acre-foot reservoir.

The river district says such a reservoir could put more water in the often parched lower Crystal River in the fall and could also provide hydropower.

But the county, CVEPA and American Rivers are actively opposing the renewal of the conditional water rights tied to the dam and a 21-day trial in district water court is scheduled for August.

In the meantime those groups, plus the Conservancy, are testing local sentiment about seeking Wild and Scenic designation.

“We want to disseminate as much information as possible to the public about the Wild and Scenic program, and then ask the folks in the Crystal River Valley if they think it is a good idea to pursue,” said Pitkin County Attorney John Ely, who leads most of the county’s water-related initiatives.

To that end, the groups held two public meetings in mid-November, one in Redstone attended by 57 people and one in Carbondale with 35 people there…

What the Wild and Scenic Act does do is let the river run — by preventing federal agencies from permitting or funding “any dam, water conduit, reservoir, powerhouse, transmission line or other project,” according to its language.

It would prevent, for example, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from issuing a permit for a hydropower project on the river or along its banks.

“Some rivers need to be left alone,” said David Moryc, senior director of river protection at American Rivers, describing the underlying intent of the law, according to a summary of the meeting prepared by the Roaring Fork Conservancy…

When asked about that via email, Ely of Pitkin County said he thought Colorado had only one designated river because of the “lack of information as to the benefits and restrictions of the designation, and the time and dedication it takes to get it through Congress.”

Another reason may be that once a river is designated Wild and Scenic, the federal government becomes a stakeholder on the river and has a chance to review potential changes to it, such as any new water rights. Some may feel that Colorado water law is complicated enough already…

“I think the Crystal has the potential to be a nice clean straightforward effort because there are no out-of-basin uses yet,” Ely wrote. “If there is interest in going forward, we’re happy to be the laboring oar and do that work.”

More Crystal River Watershed coverage here and here.

2013 Colorado legislation: Sen. Gail Schwartz plans to introduce a bill to grease the conservation skids for farmers

From The Aspen Daily News (Curtis Wackerle):

As the legislative session is about to kick off, state Sen. Gail Schwartz, D-Snowmass Village, has drought and renewable energy on her mind.

For her first bill of the 2013 session of the Colorado General Assembly, Schwartz will introduce legislation that would allow farmers to implement water-conservation measures without fear of endangering their water rights.

The bill, which would enact safeguards against the normal “use it or lose it” rules governing Colorado water rights, was defeated in a summer water committee, where a supermajority is required to move forward. But in the normal session, Schwartz, who is the chair of the Senate’s Agriculture, Natural Resources and Energy Committee, would need just a majority to pass the bill. The idea, Schwartz said, is to protect farmers who choose to cut down on water use, since not taking the full allotment can expose water rights holders to abandonment claims.

“Given the drought circumstances, we need to do things differently,” said Schwartz, 63, who is halfway through her second and final term as a state senator.

More 2013 Colorado legislation coverage here.

‘The water levels in the San Luis Valley aquifers are dropping, and have been dropping’ — Craig Cotten

Here’s the latest installment in the Valley Courier’s Colorado Water 2012 series, written by Craig Cotten. Here’s an excerpt:

The Rio Grande is in the fourth year of below average streamflows. Other parts of Colorado are also in a severe drought this year, with some areas having a more severe single year drought than the San Luis Valley. However, much of Colorado had very good precipitation and streamflow last year which filled their reservoirs and aquifers. In fact, some areas in the northern part of the state had one of their best years ever last year in terms of precipitation and streamflow, while this basin languished in the midst of a multi-year drought. Since the extreme drought year of 2002, there have only been three years of above normal flow on the Rio Grande and only two years on the Conejos River. Some smaller streams around the valley have fared even worse, with only one year of above normal flows in the last ten.

The water levels in the San Luis Valley aquifers are dropping, and have been dropping, over the last several years. This drop is in response to the lower than normal recharge into the aquifers from the area rivers, streams, and ditches. After seeing modest gains during the years of 2007 to 2009, the unconfined aquifer is once again dropping substantially.

According to the aquifer study conducted by Davis Engineering, the unconfined aquifer in the West Central part of the San Luis Valley has lost nearly 500,000 acre-feet of water during the last three years. There is not a formal, comprehensive study of the confined aquifer throughout the Valley, but this aquifer is also seeing significant declines in the amount of artesian pressure. While it is not known exactly how much water is in the aquifers, it is obvious that the San Luis Valley cannot continue this drastic drop in the aquifers without severe long-term consequences…

In order to address the problem of injury to surface water users and the decline in the aquifers due to well pumping, the State Engineer is in the process of developing Rules and Regulations concerning the withdrawal of groundwater in Division 3. The State Engineer is being assisted in the development of these rules by a 55 member advisory committee made up primarily of area water users.

While these rules are not completed yet, we do know generally what they will require. In general, the rules will require that large capacity wells in the San Luis Valley repay the injury that they are causing to senior water rights, which are generally ditch and canal rights. In addition, the rules will have a sustainability component which will require that well owners ensure that the underground aquifers are brought back to a sustainable level.

The repayment of injurious depletions and ensuring sustainability can be accomplished by a well owner in two ways. A well owner may choose to implement an individual augmentation plan in which that owner will cover his individual well or wells. Otherwise, a well owner may choose to join a subdistrict, which, in exchange for monetary payment, will provide the repayment of injurious depletions and the sustainability of the aquifers for that owner.

More Colorado Water 2012 coverage here.

San Luis Valley: Groundwater sub-district #1 trial concluded

From the Valley Courier (Ruth Heide):

A couple of points in the sub-district’s operating plan, which was implemented for the first time this year, were the focus of the two-day trial this week before Judge Swift. Most of the discussion revolved around the inclusion of augmentation plan wells in the sub-district’s 2012 operating plan and the use of Closed Basin Project water in the 2012 plan…

In his closing argument on Tuesday afternoon, RGWCD Attorney David Robbins said the district acknowledged it made two errors of omission in the 2012 Annual Operating Plan (ARP): 1) list of augmentation wells; and 2) map of those wells’ locations. Robbins said the un-augmented well depletions from those wells within the sub-district were identified and replaced, however. Robbins suggested the way to handle the compliance errors this year would be for the court to enjoin the sub-district in the future to ensure it complies with the required information.

Attorney Tim Buchanan, representing surface water users who filed objections in this case, said he believed the court should go a step further. He said a message must be sent that the court decrees must be complied with. “The 2012 plan did not comply with the plan as decreed by this court and as approved by the Supreme Court,” Buchanan said. “Therefore in my view we need to fashion a remedy that does not approve the plan but directs the plan be amended to reflect the augmentation wells were not properly included, that they should have been separately identified and they should be separately accounted for.”[...]

The other contested topic in this trial was the use of Closed Basin Project water to replace well depletions to streams this year.

In his closing argument attorney Bill Paddock, representing sub-district supporters, reminded the court the judge’s October 4 order resolved the question of legal suitability of Closed Basin Project water for use in the plan of management. The question argued during the trial was a factual question regarding whether the water was an appropriate source of replacement water for injurious depletions, he said. Paddock argued the project water was appropriate to replace depletions and said the state engineer agreed.

When [State Engineer Dick Wolfe] was on the stand on Tuesday, he said he and his staff, with advice from their legal counsel, determined the sources of replacement water in the sub-district’s 2012 ARP, including the Closed Basin Project water, were suitable. Wolfe said the water court’s May 2010 decree stated this possible source of replacement water was not prohibited. He testified the sub-district’s plan of water management approved by the water court and Supreme Court specifically referenced Closed Basin Project water as a replacement water source.

More SLV groundwater coverage here and here.

‘The court had made it absolutely clear our main priority was to replace depletions, keep the river whole’ — Steve Vandiver

Here’s a recap of day one of the water court trial over the implementation plan for groundwater sub-district #1 down in the San Luis Valley, from Ruth Heide writing for the Valley Courier. Click through and read the whole article. Here’s an excerpt:

The plan spells out how the sub-district would replace injurious depletions from well users to surface water rights this year, the first full year of operation for the sub-district, which covers about 3,000 wells in portions of Alamosa, Rio Grande and Saguache Counties.

Two of three anticipated witnesses took the stand on Monday: Steve Vandiver, general manager for the sub-district’s sponsoring district, the Rio Grande Water Conservation District (RGWCD); and Allen Davey, district engineer for the water district. Expected to testify today is State Engineer Dick Wolfe who approved the sub-district’s annual operating plan for 2012…

Tim Buchanan, attorney for San Antonio, Los Pinos and Conejos River Acequia Preservation Association and Save Our Senior Water Rights, LLC, objectors to the sub-district plan, explained that since this was the first year for the operating plan he and other attorneys representing senior water users initially brought up every possible issue they thought might need to be addressed because they were concerned about being foreclosed from addressing them in the future if they did not.

He added the counsel for objectors and supporters have come to an agreement on general stipulations regarding most of those issues, but two remained as the subject of the abbreviated trial before Judge Swift this week:

1) Whether the sub-district’s amended plan approved by the water court in 2010 authorized the inclusion of augmentation plan wells.

Buchanan argued, “The annual plan must comply with the terms of the amended plan. The inclusion of the augmented wells in the amended plan is not an issue within the amended plan. The amended plan does not address that.”

2) Whether Closed Basin Project water is a logical source of supply to replace depletions caused by wells in the sub-district.

Closed Basin Project water was used this year to replace sub-district depletions. Buchanan said since the series of wells that comprise the project supplies were appropriated in 1963, they are extremely junior water rights to his clients’ senior water rights and were not an appropriate source of water to replace depletions…

Vandiver reminded the court of the sub-district’s goal to replace injurious depletions from the wells in the sub-district to surface senior water rights and stabilize the Valley’s aquifers. He outlined the sub-district’s historical timelines from the trial court’s decree in 2010 to the Supreme Court’s affirmation of the lower court in December 2011; the court order to begin assessing fees of irrigators in the sub-district; the acquisition of water supplies to cover depletions; and the development of first the sub-district plan and more recently the annual operating plan or ARP. When asked from whom he acquired replacement water, Vandiver replied “anybody who would listen to me.”

He said he was able to acquire transmountain water and negotiated one-year agreements from private individuals and entities, with future plans for permanent sources. He said this year he needed to obtain water that was readily available in a short time to meet the sub-district water replacement requirements. “The court had made it absolutely clear our main priority was to replace depletions, keep the river whole … eliminate injuries to senior water rights,” Vandiver said…

Vandiver also testified about the Closed Basin Project, a federal water salvage project operated by the RGWCD and Bureau of Reclamation. The project includes 170 shallow wells designed to capture water that would otherwise be lost through evaporation. Vandiver testified that the project was constructed to help Colorado meet its Rio Grande Compact obligations to downstream states, mitigate impacts of the project on wetlands, repay Colorado’s indebtedness and sell water to entities in the Valley if there was water available. The project is expected to deliver 11,500 acre feet of water this year. The sub-district is using 2,500 acre feet as a replacement water source this year.

More San Luis Valley groundwater coverage here and here.

The Central Colorado Water Conservancy District is asking voters to approve a $60 million water bond issue

From The Greeley Tribune (Eric Brown):

Fall is always a hectic time of the year for Randy Knutson, but the LaSalle­area farmer has spent more time away from home during this harvesting season than probably any other.
In addition to rounding up matured crops in his fields and also managing operations for Zabka Farms near Greeley, Knutson in recent weeks has been trekking across the area to convince fellow producers and other residents that approving a $60 million bond issue is in their best interest.

His long hours are well worth it, as far as he’s concerned.

Without the bond issue and the water that would be purchased with the millions of dollars, harvests of future autumns could be minimal in Weld County, he says, with the local economy suffering as a result.

Knutson and others are asking taxpayers of the Central Colorado Water Conservancy District to approve Measure 4A — the $60 million bond issue that would be used for more water storage and buying water rights.

Residents in Central’s district will vote on that measure as part of next week’s election. “Without the water, you’re going to see agriculture go away in Weld County,” said Knutson, who serves on the board of directors for Central and serves as chairman of the voluntary Yes For Water group that’s been promoting and raising funds for Measure 4A. “And now is the time we need to be going out to get the water we need.”

Central oversees two subdistricts that provide augmentation water to farmers in the LaSalle and Gilcrest areas and other parts of southern Weld County. The two subdistricts — the Groundwater Management Subdistrict (GMS) and the Well Augmentation Subdistrict (WAS) — also stretch into Adams and Morgan counties.

Augmentation water is needed to make up for depletions to the aquifer caused by pumping water out of the ground. All together, Central’s two subdistricts provide augmentation water for more than 100,000 acres of irrigated farmground, according to Randy Ray, executive director of the Central Colorado Water Conservancy District. The additional augmentation water is needed since many of the wells in Central’s subdistricts were either curtailed or shut down back in 2006, when the state determined the pumping of those wells was depleting stream flows in the South Platte River Basin. As part of those decisions, the state made augmentation requirements more stringent. Many farmers haven’t been able to use their wells since then because they haven’t had the necessary amount of augmentation water to do so.

Knutson, himself, has three wells he still can’t use. Those wells are needed in dry years like this one, when flows in the rivers are low, bringing little water to irrigation ditches, Knutson said.

Also, Knutson said, cities in the region are growing rapidly and need more water, causing supplies to get tighter and more much expensive. For example, one unit of water from the Colorado­Big Thompson project, one of the largest water projects in the region that supplies supplemental water for municipal and agricultural uses all over northern Colorado, now costs about $10,000. It was only about $7,500 three years ago, according to Brian Werner, a spokesman for the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District.

“It’s only gong to get more expensive the longer we wait,” Knutson said. Knutson, Ray and others say the additional water and the bond measure are needed because Central Water relies heavily on leased water from cities to supply its farmers, and, as Front Range cities grow, those cities will lease out less water.

The $60 million in bonds would pay for three of Central Water’s endeavors.

The district is one of 15 water providers looking to take part in the proposed Chatfield Reservoir Reallocation Project, a $184 million undertaking that would raise the Denver­area lake by as much as 12 feet and provide an additional 2,849 acre­feet of water to Central Water. Central Water officials also are considering the construction of gravel pits for an additional 8,000­9,000 acre­feet of storage, and buying 1,000 acre­feet of senior water rights.

If the bond measure is approved, taxpayers within Central Water’s boundaries would pay an additional $1.13 each month per $100,000 in property value for the next 25 years, Knutson said.

The district recently sent out a survey to about 18,000 residents, which it said showed about 75 percent of respondents favored the bond issue. The district encompasses nearly 20,000 households.

There’s no organized group opposing the project, but some have questioned why they need to pay additional taxes for water they couldn’t personally use.

“To be completely honest, I still don’t know which way I’m going to vote,” said Dave Dechant, a Weld County farmer.

Public meetings on the bond issue held this summer grew heated at times.

In response to those residents, Ray said he hopes they’ll still support the project, since the additional water would go toward strengthening the local agriculture economy, which benefits the entire area. Ray said Central Water also might lease some of the water to residential or other users.

Some who would benefit directly from the additional water also expressed frustration at the meetings because they’ve been paying taxes to the district for several years and have yet to see any additional water. Ray said those previous taxes have paid for the legal and engineering fees that have now given Central rights to 68,000 acre­feet of additional water.

The $60 million bond issue would pay for the infrastructure to finally put some of those water rights to use, Ray explained.

More 2012 Colorado November election coverage here.

San Luis Valley: Groundwater sub-district #1 trial update: Use of closed basin water still a sticking point

From the Valley Courier (Ruth Heide):

When the afternoon was concluded, objectors and supporters had agreed in concept to the 2012 annual replacement plan (ARP) for the sub-district and the underlying methodologies and technologies used to develop that plan. That made one of the remaining motions to strike expert witnesses and their reports a moot point because there is now no longer the need for a number of witnesses to present extensive testimony.

Proponents now plan to call only three witnesses, Rio Grande Water Conservation District Manager (RGWCD) Steve Vandiver, RGWCD engineer Allen Davey and Colorado Division of Water Resources State Engineer Dick Wolfe.

This first sub-district, which was designed to repair injurious depletions from well pumping to surface water rights and reduce the draw on the aquifer, operates under a management plan that is effectuated each year through an annual replacement plan. The annual plan spells out how depletions will be replaced…

The sponsoring water district approved the annual plan, as did the state engineer. Objectors challenged it and asked the judge to prohibit wells from pumping in the sub-district boundaries until those challenges were resolved this year. She denied that motion.

Objectors subsequently asked for their claims to be withdrawn and the October trial to be vacated. Judge Swift told objectors they could either withdraw their challenges to the 2012 replacement plan on the condition they could not bring those challenges back again or withdraw them with the opportunity to re-file them only if they paid the supporters’ costs for preparing for trial. They chose the first option, except for Schwiesow whose client the Costilla Ditch Company chose not to withdraw its claims.

One issue still remaining for trial is the use of Closed Basin Project water as one of the sources to replace depletions. Davey in particular will testify to that issue next week. He will also testify about augmentation wells, another issue still pending before the judge…

One of the controversial topics before the judge on Wednesday revolved around the possibility of challenging sub-district water plans in the future. Proponents said they would like some definitive rulings from the judge regarding the foundation of the water plan so they would not have to go through all the time and effort they did this year every year to defend the sub-district’s plan.

“We want the court to be in a position to be able to make factual determinations about the adequacy of the replacement plan because it was so broadly challenged,” [David Robbins, attorney for the Rio Grande Water Conservation District ] said.

[Attorney for the objectors Tim Buchanan] said the objectors raised broad issues “because we didn’t want to be foreclosed in the future from raising those issues.”

More San Luis Valley groundwater coverage here and here.

Arkansas Valley Super Ditch: ‘There is no reviewable decision to appeal at this time’ — Judge Schwartz

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Opponents of the Super Ditch pilot program jumped the gun when filing a complaint, Division 2 Water Judge Larry Schwartz ruled Monday. In June, Prowers County water users filed the complaint against State Engineer Dick Wolfe and the Arkansas Valley Super Ditch, saying the state did not have authority to approve a substitute water supply plan for Super Ditch. But the plan never was given final approval, because Super Ditch could not meet all of the conditions that were outlined, Schwartz said in the decision.

“There is no reviewable decision to appeal at this time,” Schwartz said.

The pilot program set out to lease 500 acre­feet of water from the Catlin Canal to Fountain and Security. Water would be taken from dried­up acres and released to the river over time through recharge ponds. An exchange would move the water to Lake Pueblo, where it could be used by the cities through the Fountain Valley Conduit. After a public meeting in January and two technical meetings with objectors, Wolfe cut some farms from the plan and the amount of the program in half. Because of the drought and conditions put on the plan, it was never approved or carried out.

Amity Mutual Irrigation Co., District 67 Irrigating Canals Association, Lower Arkansas Water Management Association and Tri​State Generation and Transmission Association filed the court case in May, saying Wolfe lacked authority.

Super Ditch eventually plans to move larger amounts of water from as many as seven canals that take water from the Arkansas River in Pueblo and Otero counties, but has not filed an application for change of water rights, the opponents contend. Super Ditch officials say the pilot program must come first to work out details of how the full program would operate.

More Arkansas Valley Super Ditch coverage here and here.

Check out this cool interactive water history of Colorado from Patricia Rettig and the Colorado Water Institute

Click here for a great interactive timeline of Colorado’s water history from Patricia Rettig and the Colorado Water Institute.

Thanks to Colorado Water 2012 (@ColoWater2012) for the link:

Great interactive timeline of Colorado's water created by the Water Resource Archive at CSU fb.me/1DwV5k4id

—
Colorado Water 2012 (@ColoWater2012) October 22, 2012

More education coverage here.

Objectors have been active in water court helping to forge the Arkansas Valley Super Ditch proposed substitute water supply plan

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The conditions placed on a pilot program for the Arkansas Valley Super Ditch were much more restrictive than a water lease by Aurora from the High Line Canal in 2004­05.

Wednesday, the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District asked, “Why?”

Lower Ark water attorney Peter Nichols reviewed key differences between the substitute water supply plans for the two water leases:

● Aurora proposed leasing 18,000 acre­feet over two years, while the Super Ditch plan was for just 250 acre­feet from the Catlin Canal to Security and Fountain for one year.

● The Super Ditch had a more extensive process to provide information and technical details to objectors. More conditions, engineering requirements and scrutiny were placed on the Super Ditch.

● Some farms were taken out of the Super Ditch plan, while unlimited participation was permitted for the High Line Canal lease.

“The point here is that it’s gotten more difficult. The standards haven’t changed, but there are many more details needed to prove there is no material injury,” Nichols said.

Even though there were more restrictions, several water users filed a complaint about the plan in water court.

State Engineer Dick Wolfe, who attended the meeting, said comparing the two plans amounted to “apples and oranges.”

“We’ve been doing the same type of plan for decades,” Wolfe said. “But there are more terms and conditions as time goes on.”

In the High Line Canal case, specific concerns raised by other water users were addressed. Each case is unique, Wolfe added.

Nichols said Super Ditch will continue to work with the state for temporary plans before filing a change case in water court, a similar process used by well associations prior to obtaining water decrees.

“We’re not giving up,” Nichols said. “We’ll be back next year, working to come up with a true alternative to buy­ and­dry . ”

Meanwhile, State Engineer Dick Wolfe told some at the meeting the he would not suspend the rules for augmentation. Here’s a report from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. Here’s an excerpt:

[Lamar farmer Dale Mauch] is among farmers trying to loosen up state water­replacement requirements by trying to prove that
irrigation ponds that feed sprinklers leak more than presumed by a state formula.

The state presumes 3 percent leakage, while farmers say it’s closer to 20 to 25 percent.

Wolfe replied that the state’s actions are bound by court­decreed rules that make it difficult to alter or suspend
any of the provisions.

“Dale, the state’s computer model doesn’t agree with you,” another farmer joked.

“I live in reality,” Mauch laughed.

Pueblo County farmer Tom Rusler, who farms on the Bessemer Ditch, asked if the accounting for the rules could
be done after the irrigation season, rather than in advance.

Wolfe said the rules require a plan prior to the irrigation season and can’t be altered without a change in the court
decree. Wolfe said the rules could be amended to reflect the results of the pond study. Additionally, the Lower Ark
district, which administers a group plan for water replacement under Rule 10 of the rules, can amend its report.

More water law coverage here.

More coverage from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

A familiar face has joined the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District as the director from Crowley County.

Jim Valliant, 76, was appointed to the board this month by Deborah Eyler, chief judge of Pueblo District Court. He lives in Olney Springs and replaces Pete Moore, who left the board in May when he moved to Nebraska.

“I’ve been in water conservation all my life,” Valliant said. “I came from an 8-inch rain area in Pecos, Texas. I’ve always encouraged people to do everything they can to save water.”

Valliant came to Crowley County in 1978, and was manager of the Foxley Cattle Co. He also managed farms for the Navajo Irrigation Project in New Mexico and worked with Anderson Seed from Lamar.

More Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District coverage here.

All objectors have stipulated out of San Miguel County’s water rights application

From the Montrose County Daily Press (Katharhynn Heidelberg):

District Judge J. Steven Patrick on Wednesday signed an order approving stipulations between the county, the Colorado Water Conservation Board and the state and division engineers. Patrick must yet issue a formal decree, which is expected soon.

The county filed in 2010 for water rights on the San Miguel River and said it acted quickly so that its application could come in ahead of the Colorado Water Conservation Board’s. Initially, the county wanted up to six reservoir sites and several thousand acre-feet of water. Controversy arose after environmental groups questioned the overall plan as a “water grab” and others raised questions about eminent domain.

More San Miguel River Watershed coverage here and here.

San Luis Valley: Groundwater Subdistrict No. 1 implementation plan trial scheduled for October 29

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Matt Hildner):

One of the main groups objecting to how irrigators in part of the San Luis Valley mitigate the harm caused by groundwater pumping has chosen not to withdraw a number of its claims from court. The move by surface water users from the Conejos River basin and the northwestern corner of the valley, which came in a Tuesday filing to the water court for the Rio Grande basin, means a scheduled trial is still on for Oct. 29.

The objectors reaffirmed their claim against the use of water from the Closed Basin Project, which pumps groundwater from the east side of the valley and sends it down the Rio Grande River to assist Colorado in meeting the Rio Grande Compact.

Subdistrict No. 1, which includes just under 3,400 groundwater wells in the north-central part of the valley, had proposed using up to 2,500 acre-feet from the federal reclamation project to replace an estimated 4,700 acre-feet in depletions this year.

The subdistrict also has leased rights to roughly 5,500 acre-feet from reservoirs and trans-basin diversions near the Rio Grande’s headwaters to meet the depletions.

Judge Pattie Swift said last week the issue concerning the reclamation project could not be decided without a trial since there were issues of fact that were in dispute.

Swift also said the proposal from objectors to have a special master appointed likely would not be decided until after the trial.

More San Luis Valley groundwater coverage here and here.

San Luis Valley: Groundwater Subdistrict No. 1 implementation plan trial scheduled for October 29

From the Valley Courier (Ruth Heide):

Chief District Judge Pattie Swift on Thursday decided some of the pending motions in the water cases involving the San Luis Valley’s first water management sub-district operating plan and the state’s approval of it. She scheduled another hearing for October 24 to deal with more of the pending motions and is still planning to go forward with the scheduled October 29th trial to hear evidence and testimony.

This is the first year of operation for the Rio Grande Water Conservation District sponsored sub-district that involves hundreds of irrigators in the Valley’s closed basin area north of the Rio Grande. The sub-district was designed to repair injuries to senior surface water rights and replenish the Valley’s aquifers, and to that end the sub-district board developed an annual replacement plan for this year.

Objectors asked the court to invoke retained jurisdiction over the sub-district and deal with concerns they have over its first annual replacement plan. Judge Swift earlier this summer denied a motion from objectors that would have shut down wells in the sub-district until concerns over the operating plan were resolved.

Given that decision by the court, the objectors recently filed a motion to amend their invocation to retain jurisdiction and asked the judge to vacate the trial. Sub-district supporters and the state engineer’s office asked the judge to make an immediate decision on these motions and argued in favor of going forward with the trial.

Since the trial is scheduled for the end of this month, Judge Swift agreed to make a quick decision.

“The objectors seek to amend their claims, to remove them from consideration of the court and vacate the trial because they believe the primary issues remaining to be determined are contained within the amended motion before the court,” Judge Swift summed up the situation Thursday afternoon in court.

She said there are two motions for summary judgment: 1) concerning augmentation plan wells; and 2) concerning the Closed Basin Project.

Two other motions are also outstanding: 1) to strike expert witness designations and reports; and 2) to appoint a special master…

Also on Thursday, Judge Swift ruled on the objectors’ motion opposing the use of Closed Basin Project water for replacement water for the sub-district. She denied the objectors’ motion, “as I find there are disputed issues of material fact that must be determined to decide whether the Closed Basin Project water is adequate and suitable to prevent injuries to senior water rights under the district plan.”

The judge outlined objectors’ concerns with Closed Basin Project water being used to replace injurious depletions to senior water rights, with the objectors arguing that the 1963 Closed Basin Project itself represented a junior water right that in the priority system of water administration was causing injury to senior water rights so could not be used to replace injurious depletions in the sub-district…

Also on Thursday the judge asked attorneys from both sides to give her some guidance by Friday, Oct. 19 on how they believed the retained jurisdiction process should work. She said she saw the court’s primary functions in its retained jurisdiction over the sub-district as reviewing: 1) whether the plan of water management is operated in conformance with the terms of the court’s decree; and 2) whether injury is prevented in conformity with the court’s decree.

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Matt Hildner):

Water Court Judge Pattie Swift ruled Thursday that opponents of a groundwater plan could withdraw some of their claims if they were willing to pay the attorney costs for the supporters. The court has scheduled a five-day trial beginning Oct. 29 to examine the state’s approval of a plan that laid out how groundwater irrigators in the north-central part of the San Luis Valley would mitigate the harm their pumping caused to senior surface water rights owners during the current irrigation season. One group of objectors made up of surface water users in the southwestern and northwestern parts of the valley had asked the court to rule on their clams without trial in the name of saving time and expense.

But Swift pointed to one issue — the proposed use of groundwater from the federal Closed Basin Project as a source of replacement water for the plan— as one that could not be resolved without trial. “I can only decide that issue after hearing evidence,” she said.

Opponents have argued against the plan’s call to use up to 2,500 acre-feet of water from the project, which pumps groundwater on the east side of the valley and sends it to the Rio Grande to help the state comply with the downstream obligations to Texas and New Mexico.

The opponents have until Tuesday to inform the court of whether they will withdraw any of their claims.

More San Luis Valley groundwater coverage here and here.

Governor Hickenlooper on Water Court: ‘we’ve let the system run amuck’

From The Greeley Tribune (Eric Brown):

During a Weld County drought tour that included stops in Greeley and the LaSalle and Gilcrest areas, Hickenlooper said he favors changes to the state’s water court system, stating that “we’ve let the system run amuck,” and referred to water court costs as “insane.”

Hickenlooper further stressed that he wants all sides to come together to find ways for producers to legally use some of the region’s abundant underground aquifer.

“Any time you try to change water law, there’s huge pushback,” he said. “But I think it can be done.”[...]

Hickenlooper and the producers with whom he spoke all said they hope that an ongoing groundwater study in the South Platte River Basin — being conducted by the Colorado Water Institute at Colorado State University — will provide some of the answers that can lead to changes and solve some of the issues producers face…

Hickenlooper reminded farmers he doesn’t have the authority to allow the curtailed groundwater wells to pump out of priority. Hickenlooper said that, according to the state’s attorney general, he lacks the power to override the prior-appropriations system that’s been in place in Colorado for more than 100 years. Hickenlooper also said a number of water attorneys have told him that if he allowed the wells to pump out of priority, the state would face millions of dollars in lawsuits.

Downstream water users also raised concerns this summer about the push to allow the Weld County groundwater wells to pump — fearing it would prevent them from getting the surface flows to which they’re entitled. Farmers told Hickenlooper the 30 days of well-pumping they were requesting this summer would have used less than 1 percent of the groundwater in the aquifer — which some estimate is more than 10 million acre feet. All of the points made led Hickenlooper to discuss the need for more knowledge of the aquifer and cooperation on all sides moving forward.

“Smart people willing to compromise can figure this stuff out,” he stated.

More Water Law coverage here and here.