Laserfiche WebLink
<br />':1 <br /> <br />1683 <br /> <br />2. Socio/Economic <br /> <br />Transfer of water requires transaction costs that are paid by the buyer and seller but typically <br />benefit parties (water users, engineers, lawyers) outside the area of origin (Colby, 1990). Likewise, <br />costs of effects water transfers are imposed mostly on the source area. (Howe, Lazo, and Weber <br />1990) The Colorado General Assembly and the ColoradoWater Conservation Board are continuing <br />to address the issue of basin-of-origin relating to transfers of water resources in Colorado. <br /> <br />, <br />3. Interstate Compact <br /> <br />The Arkansas River Compact "equitably divide(s) and apportionCs) between the states of Colorado <br />and Kansas the waters of the Arkansas river and their utilization as well as the benefits arising from <br />the construction, operation and maintenance by the United States of John Martin reservoir project <br />for water conservation purposes." Any transfer of Ft. Lyon water rights must not be inconsistent <br />with the provisions of the Arkansas River Compact. (C:R.S. 37-39-101, Art I, B) <br /> <br />Historical Water Transfers - Arkansas River Vallev <br /> <br />Water transfers have been numerous in the Arkansas Valley. This section describes significant <br />water transfers in the region between Pueblo and the Kansas state line. Appendix 2.2 includes <br />details of water rights transferred to non-agricultural us~s. This section does not include transfers <br />for the same agricultural use (generally by the same owner) i.e, the Pueblo Reservoir Winter <br />Storage Case, Colorado Canal and Holbrook historic exchanges, Ft. Lyon winter storage case, Amity <br />Great Plains transfer to John Martin Reservoir, Las Anim'as storage in John Martin Reservoir, Town <br />Ditch move upstream, changes of diversion points to i wells by the Sisson, Hyde, Manvel, and <br />Graham Ditches, and diversion from the Lamar Power Plant by the Lamar Canal Company. These <br />ag-to-ag transfers illustrate that agricultural users have' continuously improved their own uses of <br />water by changing diversion points, using exchanges, locating storage, consolidating ditches, trading <br />water rights, and cooperatively managing water since the ditches were first constructed in the late <br />nineteenth century. The most cost effective water management improvements were recognized and <br />implemented by irrigators years ago. <br /> <br />The following water transfers out of agriculture are of ~ecord for the Lower Arkansas River Basin: <br /> <br />1 Bessemer Ditch to St Charles Mesa Wa(er District <br />2 Hamp-Bell Ditch to Valco cement ' <br />3 West Pueblo Ditch to Pueblo Board of Waterworks <br />4 Booth-Orchard Grove Ditch to Pueblo Board of Waterworks <br />5 Zoeller Ditch to St Charles Mesa Water District <br />6 Twin Lakes Reservoir Co. to Aurora, Colorado Springs, Pueblo Board of <br />Waterworks, and Pueblo West MetroPQlitan District and to a minor extent towns <br />near the historically irrigated lands ! <br />7 Colorado Canal to Colorado Springs an~ Aurora <br />8 Busk Ivanhoe System to Pueblo Board bf Water Works and Aurora <br />9 Clear Creek Reservoir and Ewing, Wurtz and Columbine Ditches to Pueblo Board <br />of Waterworks <br />10 Catlin Canal to Colorado Division of Wildlife <br />11 Rocky Ford Ditch to Aurora <br /> <br />2-11 <br />