My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
C150160 Feasibility Study
CWCB
>
Loan Projects
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
C150160 Feasibility Study
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/9/2011 11:09:45 AM
Creation date
3/26/2007 10:15:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Loan Projects
Contract/PO #
C150160
Contractor Name
Central Colorado Water Conservancy District
Contract Type
Loan
Water District
0
County
Adams
Morgan
Weld
Loan Projects - Doc Type
Feasibility Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
68
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />83rd Avenue Reservoir <br />Bernhardt Reservoir <br />Nissan Reservoir <br /> <br />300 acre-feet <br />2,500 acre-feet <br />2.000 acre-feet <br /> <br />Greeley <br />Milliken <br />Kersey <br /> <br />Total <br /> <br />7,500 acre-feet <br /> <br />Proiect Description and Alternatives <br /> <br />On December 17, 2001, the Colorado Supreme Court issued a judgment in Case 00-SA-2ll that <br />changed the manner of operation of substitute supply plans in Colorado. The case centered on a <br />dispute in the Arkansas Valley between an irrigator and an upstream homeowners association, <br />called "Empire Lodge". In 1996 Empire Lodge filed suit in Water Court claiming that the <br />downstream irrigators (the "Moyers"), had illegally expanded the use of their water right. The <br />Moyers filed a counter-suit arguing that the Colorado State Engineer had allowed Empire Lodge <br />to fill its upstream lake illegally under a substitute supply plan approved by the State Engineer. <br /> <br />The case was ultimately heard by the Colorado Supreme Court, and at the end of last year, it <br />ruled the State Engineer did not have the legal authority to approve substitute supply plans. The <br />Court went on to say that a substitute supply plan (such as the one operated by the Subdistrict) <br />would either have to file for a decree in Water Court, or follow new Rules & Regulations to be <br />issued by the State Engineer. Either alternative would raise the standard required for approval. <br />Ultimately, the Subdistrict will need to acquire more senior water rights to augment out-of- <br />priority diversions. Ultimately, the Subdistrict will need to acquire approximately $20M in <br />senior water rights to cover a 300-day period of call on the South Platte River. Central's current <br />augmentation plan has 650 members. No new members have been accepted since 1997 unless <br />they provide their own augmentation water. <br /> <br />The Subdistrict Board of Directors has considered three alternatives: <br /> <br />1. No action. <br />2. Purchase water rights to cover a 300-day period of call. <br />3. Purchase water rights to cover a 365-day period of call. <br /> <br />Alternative No.1: No Action. This is unacceptable because it will result in all of Central's <br />current members (966 wells) being such off many years when augmentation water supplies are <br />inadequate. It is estimated this could occur, on average, two or three years out often. The <br />economic impact ofthe no action alternative would be devastating to local growers, <br />communities, and the entire state. <br /> <br />Alternative No.2: Purchase water rights to cover a 300-day period of call. This action was <br />selected as it would result in existing member wells being shut off approximately two out of fifty <br /> <br />7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.