Laserfiche WebLink
<br />--Per #6: Should there be a gentleman's agreement limiting the volume or percentage of <br />water available for export to other basins? Anything not appropriated should be <br />available to put to beneficial use; but what about basin that is exporting? <br />--does group want to study these kinds of questions? <br />Steve Spann: Perhaps we should have a series of different issues maintained on a <br />computer board, like a place to mine ideas; <br />Eric H: DNR can assist; Arkansas basin set up a blog; they are using it for discussion of <br />bylaws; DNR can help put our basin up like that of Arkansas and CSU can help also; <br />Steve, Philo S., will work with Eric on getting some questions formulated and then a blog <br />site up in order to have a place for discussion. Then when we reconvene as a group to <br />discuss ideas, we have a shared location of ideas. <br /> <br />Steve Simms and Chris Trees: <br />Two substantive water bills in front of legislation: <br />1) HB 1124 Rotational Crop Management <br />2) SB37 Recreational and Channel Diversions <br />1124: 10 to 1 passed out of Ag committee: this bill allows a farmer who is changing a <br />portion of his water rights to instead of dry up a parcel, can rotate. One farmer testified <br />saying that he rotates crops in a five year cycle. One of these years he could plant dry <br />harvest and harvest money from the city. Skepticism at first when process started one <br />year ago. Built in lots of protections <br />Sponsoring rep.: Mary Hodge fi-om Brighton; 20-30 people put bill together. <br />Fallowing bill was first life of this bill but it had a negative connotation. <br />But concept is same in this one. <br />Second part of bill: This has to be administrable: could mean providing annual mapping <br />to engineers so they could see what would be dried up. For each parcel that would be <br />dried up, set separate consumptive use; third: must make a specific finding that there <br />would be no injurious results. <br />Committee asked for Division 2 engineer: would be a good idea that something in bill <br />states that a selection must be made of which parcel you would dry up so you won't be in <br />a situation that you start irrigating, then sell off water (like in a hail season).. . can change <br />next year. <br />Idea was to give farmers an additional option where they could stay in farming, 10 to 1 <br />vote. <br />This applies to irrigation companies as well; <br />These contracts would be administered through owner of water rights and eventual buyer, <br />must be approved by a water court. State engineer can approve it as long as change of <br />water use has been approved in court. <br />Bill Brown asks could this not be done now? Yes, under two different mechanisms; but <br />this is a way to potentially cut down on litigation. <br />RE: return flows: the judge in approving must make specific finding that there would not <br />be an injurious pattern of return flows. Meaning that when you normally dry up a parcel <br />of land, not 100% is consumed, the part that is not consumed, will return to stream. Want <br />this to continue. Because of call pattern that bounces along, you might be giving that <br />return flow to someone who historically did not get it and the one that historically got it, <br />does not. So, thus, important for part of bill talking about injuries. <br /> <br />7 <br />