WSP11224

• 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: 2/1/1994
• Author: Gronning Engineering
• Title: Ft Lyon Canal Company Water Transfer Alternatives Study Final 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

0216

related to water quantity or quality has not been tested. Typically objectors complain that some
aspect of the application will adversely change the quantity of water received, especially as a result
of changed return flows from historically irrigated lands, the timing of water received, or its quality.
Minority shareholders on the same ditch often also desire protection from increased operating costs,
or weed infestations on nearby dried up lands.

The application proceeds as normal civil litigation, with significant attention to experts' opinions as
to historic use of the rights and future injury to objectors. The case is tried before a water court
judge, with possible appeals directly to the Colorado Supreme Court by any of the parties. The case
may be settled by a stipulated judgement at any time. The water court must grant the application if
appropriate terms and conditions can be imposed to prevent injurious effect on the owner of or
persons entitled to use water under a water right (C.R.S. 37.92.305).

The water court to the extent possible, also will consider pertinent interstate water compact
provisions. For example, "This compact is not intended to impede or prevent future beneficial
development of the Arkansas river basin in Colorado and Kansas by federal or state agencies, by
private enterprise, or by combination thereof, which may involve construction of dams, reservoirs,
and other works for the purposes, of water utilization and control, as well as the improved or
prolonged functioning of existing works: Provided, that the waters of the Arkansas river, as defined
in article III, shall not be materially depleted in usable quantity or availability for use to the water
users in Colorado and Kansas under this compact by such future development or construction."
(Arkansas River Compact, C.R.S. 37.69.101, Art. IV, D)

Major transfers may have twenty or more opposing parties. The experts typically employed by the
parties include water rights hydrologists supplemented with groundwater geologists, surface or
groundwater modelers, and water quality analysts. Experts generally, but not always, prepare written
reports describing the details of the proposed transfers. Generally, conditions to prevent injury are
a part of the experts' opinions and become a part of the transfer decree (Pratt 1984).

While the water court process has been criticized as costly and time consuming, thorough
preparation, active case management, and aggressive setting of deadlines can result in timely
decisions in water court. 2

2.3 Prior Transfer Interest in Ft. LYon Canal Companv Water

In 1987 a group of 65 percent of the Ft. Lyon shareholders organized FORT-CO and joined together
in an effort to sell Ft. Lyon water to municipal interests. The asking price was $2,500 per acre foot
or $4,210 per share based on their analysis. The offer to sell was not accepted by any municipal

2 The water transfer process in Colorado is described by several authors. Refer to Browning (1992) and Vranesh
(1987). For Colorado water transfer data, refer to MacDonnell and Robinson (1990). For an explanation of policy
and procedures in the western states, refer to Colby, et al. (1989), Studies of policy-induced transaction oosts of water
transfers are presented by Howe, Boggs and Butler (1990) and Colby (1990).

2.3