WSP08835

• File Number: 8149.100
• Description: Miscellaneous Small Projects and Project Studies - NRCS-Ft Lyon Canal Co Limestone Graveyard Creeks
• State: CO
• Basin: Arkansas
• Water Division: 2
• Date: 6/2/1993
• Author: Gronning Engineering
• Title: Ft Lyon Canal Company Water Transfer Alternatives Study Phase I Report
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

. 2. SociolEconomic

001r?nsfer of water requires transaction costs that are paid by the buyer and seller but typically
benefit parties (water users, engineers, lawyers) outside the area of origin (Colby, 1990). Likewise,
costs of effects water transfers are imposed mostly on the source area. (Howe, Lazo, and Weber
1990) The Colorado General Assembly and the Colorado Water Conservation Board are continuing
to address the issue of basin-of-origin relating to transfers of water resources in Colorado.

3. Interstate Compact

The Arkansas River Compact "equitably dividers) and apportion(s) between the states of Colorado
and Kansas the waters of the Arkansas river and their utilization as well as the benefits arising from
the construction, operation and maintenance by the United States of John Martin reservoir project
for water conservation purposes." Any transfer of Ft. Lyon water rights must not be inconsistent
with the provisions of the Arkansas River Compact. (C.R.S. 37-39-101, Art I, B)

Historical Water Transfers - Arkansas River Vallev

Water transfers have been numerous in the Arkansas Valley. This section describes significant
water transfers in the region between Pueblo and the Kansas state line. Appendix 2.2 includes
details of water rights transferred to non-agricultural uses. This section does not include transfers
for the same agricultural use (generally by the same owner) i.e. the Pueblo Reservoir Winter
Storage Case, Colorado Canal and Holbrook historic exchanges, Ft. Lyon winter storage case, Amity
Great Plains transfer to John Martin Reservoir, Las Animas storage in John Martin Reservoir, Town
Ditch move upstream, changes of diversion points to wells by the Sisson, Hyde, Manvel, and
Graham Ditches, and diversion from the Lamar Power Plant by the Lamar Canal Company. These
ag-to-ag transfers illustrate that agricultural users have continuously improved their own uses of
water by changing diversion points, using exchanges, locating storage, consolidating ditches, trading
water rights, and cooperatively managing water since the ditches were first constructed in the late
nineteenth century. The most cost effective water management improvements were recognized and
implemented by irrigators years ago.

The following water transfers out o{agriculture are of record for the Lower Arkansas River Basin:

1 Bessemer Ditch to St Charles Mesa Water District
2 Hamp-Bell Ditch to Valco cement
3 West Pueblo Ditch to Pueblo Board of WatelWorks
4 Booth-Orchard Grove Ditch to Pueblo Board of WatelWorks
5 Zoeller Ditch to St Charles Mesa Water District
6 Twin Lakes Reservoir Co. to Aurora, Colorado Springs, Pueblo Board of
WatelWorks, and Pueblo West Metropolitan District and to a minor extent towns
near the historically irrigated lands
7 Colorado Canal to Colorado Springs and Aurora
8 Busk Ivanhoe System to Pueblo Board of Water Works and Aurora
9 Clear Creek Reservoir and Ewing, Wurtz and Columbine Ditches to Pueblo Board
of WatelWorks
10 Catlin Canal to Colorado Division of Wildlife
11 Rocky Ford Ditch to Aurora

2-11