Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1675 <br /> <br />if appropriate terms and conditions can be imposed to prevent injurious effect on the owner of or <br />persons entitled to use water under a water right (C.R.S. 37-92-305). <br /> <br />The water court to the extend possible, also will consider pertinent interstate water compact <br />provisions. For example, "This compact is not intended to impede or prevent future beneficial <br />development of the Arkansas river basin in Colorado and Kansas by federal or state agencies, by <br />private enterprise, or by combination thereof, which may involve construction of dams, reservoirs, <br />and other works for the purposes, of water utilization and control, as well as the improved or <br />prolonged functioning of existing works: Provided, that the waters of the Arkansas river, as defined <br />in article III, shall not be materially depleted in usable quantity or availability for use to the water <br />users in Colorado and Kansas under this compact by such future development or construction." <br />(Arkansas River Compact, C.R.S. 37-69-101, Art. lV, D) <br /> <br />Major transfers may have twenty or more opposing parties. The experts typically employed by the <br />parties include water rights hydrologists supplemented with groundwater geologists, surface or <br />groundwater modelers, and water quality analysts. Experts generally, but not always, prepare <br />written reports describing the details of the proposed ~ransfers. Generally, conditions to prevent <br />injury are a part of the experts' opinions and become a part of the transfer decree (Pratt, 1984). <br /> <br />While the water court process has been criticized as costly and time consuming, thorough <br />preparation, active case management, and aggressive setting of deadlines can result in timely <br />decisions in water court. I <br /> <br />Prior Transfer Interest in Ft. Lvon Canal Company Water <br /> <br />In 1987 a group of 65 percent of the Ft. Lyon sharehold~rs organized FORT-CO and joined together <br />in an effort to sell Ft. Lyon water to municipal interests. The asking price was $2,500 per acre foot <br />or $4,210 per share based on their analysis. The offer to sell was not accepted by any municipal <br />interest and failed. This attempt to sell may have set the stage for the 1991 offer by the Colorado <br />Water Supply Company. <br /> <br />In December 1991, Colorado Water Supply Company (CWS), submitted an offer to shareholders <br />of the Ft. Lyon Canal Company for the purchase of their shares. CWS is a sister company to <br />Colorado Interstate Gas Company and a subsidiary of Cpastal Corporation of Houston, Texas. CWS <br />desired to purchase at least a controlling 51% interest! in the company. The offer was a 43 page <br />contract accompanied by 118 pages of exhibits, including escrow instructions, easements, deeds and <br />assignments, covenants, proxies and lienholder's consents. In February, 1992, CWS tendered 19 <br />pages of modifications to the contract and exhibits. <br /> <br />The deadline for shareholders acceptance was January 13, 1992; after the request of Colorado <br />Governor Roy Romer for additional time to consider the impacts of the proposal, the deadline was <br />extended to March 6, 1992. On March 13, 1992, CWS announced that this plan to acquire the <br /> <br />1 The water transfer process in Colorado is described by several authors. Refer to Browning <br />[1992] and Vranesh [1987]. For Colorado water transfer data, refer to MacDonnell and Robinson <br />[1990]. For an explanation of policy and procedures in the western states, refer to Colby, et al. <br />[1989]. Studies of policy-induced transaction costs of water transfers are presented by Howe, <br />Boggs and Butler [1990] and Colby [1990]. <br /> <br />2-3 <br /> <br />~ <br />