Laserfiche WebLink
The lease of recharge credits by GASP was also mentioned and the value and low cost <br />pointed out ( $2/a-f). The use of additional recharge projec ts was encouraged and this <br />has come to fruition with hundreds of rech arge facilities constructed up to 2006. <br />Recommended Plan to Facilitate Supplemental Well Pumping for Drought Relief <br />The report then set forth the concept of th e plan which was identifying those surface <br />water rights which would most seriously be a ffected by drought and well depletions and <br />developing a method to alleviate the detrimenta l effect of well depl etions and drought for <br />each affected canal. <br />For each of the canals listed above for Distri ct 64, a plan was developed that relied on <br />well fields along the canals to operate as alte rnate points of diversi on (APD’s) to senior <br />surface water rights. The report in particul ar described how the APD’s would operate <br />without injury to downstream water rights ba sed on the legal treatment of APD’s in 1978. <br />The APD was also premised upon the fact th at any downstream senior water right was <br />satisfied and not calling due to the supplemen tal well fields along the canal. However, <br />this legal treatment changed in the 1980’s and the delayed depletions of APD pumping <br />now have to be considered and if other ri ghts are injured, then the APD pumping must <br />replace this post-pumping depletion. This is es pecially a problem if there are downstream <br />reservoir rights diverting in the non-irriga tion season that could be impacted by post- <br />pumping depletions. Existing decreed APD’s were not subjec t to this change in legal <br />theory. <br />For District 1, the plan recogni zed that little could be done for the Riverside and North <br />Sterling systems since wells along the upper parts of the canals could not operate as <br />APD’s without injuring downstream senior water rights due to the junior priority of the <br />water rights associated with these systems. There was no other recourse for these water <br />rights other than maximizing diversions of av ailable surface water. This is a major <br />problem for a conjunctive use pr ogram for the South Platte basin and while it may have <br />worked for a limited duration drought, it may not be feasible for a long term conjunctive <br />use program unless this shortage to these systems is addresse d in some way. The Weldon <br />Valley canal would divert Jackson Lake water in an exchange with th e Fort Morgan canal <br />water users who would pump ground water rather than use their Jackson Lake shares. <br />This would require a large de gree of cooperation that may not have been possible in 1978 <br />or more so in 2007. <br />For District 1, the canals f acing shortages are more impacted by drought and not well <br />depletions since there are not many wells ups tream of these canals. Evans No. 2 would <br />divert water by exchange with the more senior Western canal and the Western Canal <br />users would pump ground water. The Evans No. 2 water users would pay the Western <br />canal users to pump. The Fulton Canal woul d operate an intra-ditch exchange among <br />share holders with wells and those without wells. Those without wells would take <br />surface water and pay those with wells to pump. The additional depletions resulting from <br />this plan would have to be replaced or it could not be approved. There was no solution <br />4 <br />