SalvagedWater - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

July 13, 2007 Page 4 soil on the banks of the ri ver will slip away causing irreparable erosion. . . . We believe that in this situation unr estrained self-help to a previously untapped water supply would re sult in a barren wasteland. 529 P.2d at 1327. See also Ready Mixed Concrete Co. , 115 P.3d at 644 (“[t]o permit such a practice would encourage stripping the envi ronment . . . and reward developers”); R.J.A., Inc. , 690 P.2d at 828 (“maximizing beneficial use and in tegrated use of surface and subsurface water must be implemented with a sensitivit y to the effect on other resources”). Legislative Enactments The holdings of Shelton Farms and Castle Meadows are now codified at C.R.S. § 37-92-103(9) with respect to the use of salvag ed water in augmentation plans: “Plan for augmentation” does not include the salvage of tributary waters by the eradication of phreatophytes, nor doe s it include the use of tributary water collected from land surfaces that have been made impermeable, thereby increasing the runoff but not adding to the ex isting supply of tributary water. As discussed above, the Court in Shelton Farms specifically noted that the legislature had authority to prescribe new salvage water protocols. The legislature has already created at least two such statutory exceptions to the salvaged wate r rule, which allow reservoirs and gravel pits to take credit against their ev aporative losses for vegetation that was eradicated by inundation of the water surface. See C.R.S. §§ 37-84-117(4); 37 -80-120(5); 37-92-305(12)(a); see also Central Colorado Water Conservancy Dist. v. Simpson , 877 P.2d 335 (Colo. 1994) (upholding gravel pit statute and stating th at “the General assembly has au thority to create programs by which water that would otherwise be lost becau se of natural vegetativ e transpiration can be developed in an orderly fash ion for beneficial use”). Other programmatic approaches to salvaged wate r and developed water have been proposed. For example, a recent study examined the potential fo r “rainwater harvesting” in Douglas County. See Leonard Rice Engineers, Inc., Meurer a nd Associates, Inc., and Ryley Carlock & Applewhite, “Holistic Approach to Sustaina ble Water Management in Northwest Douglas County” (January, 2007). This report conclude d, among other things, that while current Colorado law requires replacement (augmentation) of 100 percent of captured precipitation, it is recognized that a portion of this precipitation is lo st to native vegetation a nd sublimation (loss of water through evaporation of snow) and never reaches the stream system. See id. , at pp14-16. To the extent that the portion of precipitation th at did not historically reach the stream system could be quantified, the study sugge sts that this amount could be credited against augmentation requirements with appropri ate legislative action. See id. at p. 2.