My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SurfaceUsersResponseToSolutions
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
1-1000
>
SurfaceUsersResponseToSolutions
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:17:42 PM
Creation date
10/8/2007 10:46:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8420.500
Description
South Platte River Basin Task Force
State
CO
Basin
South Platte
Date
8/22/2007
Author
Surface Users
Title
Response Submitted to SPTF - Comments, Responses & Questions Prepared by Senior Users and Augmentation Decree Holders
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Data
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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
ii) It appears that prepayment of well depletions assumes that the well user has water <br />currently in hand to use for prepaid replacem ent of depletions. If the problem under <br />consideration by the Task Force, and faced by well users, is that some well users have a <br />shortage of augmentation supplies, prepayment do es not appear to be a realistic solution to <br />the problem well users face. <br />iii) Colorado water law requires that depletions be replaced in time, location, and amount <br />sufficient to prevent injury to other water use rs. The Task Force has not defined how the <br />concept of prepayment of depletions would assure t hat these important legal and <br />engineering standards are met. <br />iv) If well users have replacement supplies av ailable in the time, location and amount to <br />“prepay” depletions, they should instead inco rporate that water into a water court- <br />approved plan for augmentation, and manage thei r well pumping in accordance with the <br />amount of replacement supplies they actually have. The conc ept of prepayment should not <br />be used as a method by which replacemen t of ongoing depleti ons can be avoided. <br />v) Prepayment has many of the same problems as aggregation. How will it be determined <br />who should be “prepaid,” how much prepay ment is required, and who will make these <br />determinations? If prepayment is made to th e wrong water right, how can this be corrected <br />so that the shorted water users are not injured? Can a reservoir owner be forced to release <br />water that it incorrectly received as prepayme nt, and if so how can it be assured that such a <br />release will be physically possible and sufficien t to protect those who have been shorted by <br />the mistake? Would the reservoir forced to release water then be allowed to store an <br />amount of water equivalent to t hat released? How could the re servoir do this if it was no <br />longer in priority? How would it be assured that historical seepage and return flows are <br />maintained if diversion and storage pattern s are changed? These are just a few of the <br />issues that would arise with prepayment of de pletions. The Task Force has not considered <br />any of these issues. If the Task Force is to consider this option, re servoir owners should be <br />given notice and a hearing. <br />vi) Prepayment will not promote stability and re liability of water rights. Approval of <br />prepayment plans will require a co stly, time-consuming and ever-changing annual <br />determination of who is to be prepaid and how much is to be prepai d, all subject to the <br />uncertainties identified in the previous par agraph. Repayment of depletions in time, <br />location, and amount under a one-time court-appr oved augmentation plan provides a more <br />economical, transparent and stable process fo r the protection and reliability of water <br />rights. <br />vii) It appears that the prepayment option the Task Force has in mind may call for the State to <br />be responsible for approving and managing any type of prepayment system. It is far from <br />certain that the State has the re sources and staff to undertake this effort. It must be assured <br />that senior users will not be responsible for shouldering the financ ial burden associated <br />with investigating and evaluating prepayment proposals when their interests can be <br />protected simply by adhering to the rule to replace depletions in time, location and amount. <br />viii) As stated above with regard to aggregation, the prepayment option will open the State <br />up to possible legal action and damages if a water us er is shorted by failure of prepayment <br />to prevent injury. Is the State prepared to take measures to compensate users by <br />prepayments or to insure that water users who may be injured do not bear the financial <br />8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.