WellRegulationInSP (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

South Platte River Task Force Briefing Document supplies, resulting in an annual “quota” of allowable well pumping by the nearly 1000 Central GMS member wells. In June 2005, the Central WAS SWSP was again approved for 445 wells, while Central ¼ WAS began to prepare for a 2006 trial in the Water Court. The Central WAS case was again opposed by most of the same water users that had litigated the Central GMS case. In April 2006, with the May 2006 trial date approaching, Central WAS petitioned the water ¼ court to postpone trial on its augmentation plan. Many water users opposed the postponement, arguing that their water rights were presently being injured by the operation of the WAS wells under the State Engineer-approved SWSPs. The water judge agreed to postpone the trial to February 2007, but only after the objectors who had appealed the approval of the 2003 and 2004 SWSPs were allowed to have a hearing beginning May 8, 2006, to show how the operation of SWSPs had injured their water rights. During the spring of 2006, Central WAS engaged in an increasingly challenging and ¼ contentious effort to secure the ability of its member wells to pump during the 2006 irrigation season. Central WAS’s struggles during this period illustrate the challenges involved in the operation of a large-scale augmentation plan during a period of extended drought. Central WAS initially submitted a request for approval of a SWSP for 449 wells with a ¼ proposed pumping quota of 20 percent (of average historical pumping), based on a projected annual call period of 70 percent of the days of the year. Based on the projected 70 percent call, Central WAS projected that junior diversions to storage and recharge could provide almost 5,700 acre-feet of replacement water (approximately 50 percent of total replacement water in the plan). Importantly, the 70 percent annual call assumption also reduced the amount of out-of-priority depletions that would need to be replaced. In April, after considerable review, a preliminary decision was reached by State Engineer ¼ staff that based on the above-average April 1 snow pack, the plan could work if the number of days of “no call” was reasonable. Periods of no call, or “free river,” would allow the Central WAS plan to store water under a junior water right in a lined gravel pit (2,359 acre-feet of storage was initially projected for the Shores Pit; however, later information revealed only 1,500 acre-feet of storage volume was available and the liner for the pit had yet to complete a test to ensure it did not leak). The plan also proposed to use some recently completed recharge sites. A subsequent reduction in the projected number of days of “no call” required Central WAS to seek to obtain additional replacement sources. By May 1, the snow pack had declined to well below average and the State Engineer’s anticipated number of days of “no call” was re duced to nearly zero. This exacerbated the need for Central WAS to obtain additional replacement water. Some of the water expected to be available by lease, for exampl e from Fort Collins (4,000 to 5,000 acre-feet), was no longer available due to the changing runoff situation. The Central WAS projection was updated on May 5, 2006 to include all legally available ¼ water. The increased shortage that resulted from reduced lease water and storage was proposed to be made up by pumping “augmentati on wells” by the amount of approximately 8,400 acre-feet. The out-of-priority depletions from Central WAS wells in 2006 totaled approximately 16,000 acre-feet—with a pumping quota of only 15 percent. The projection provided by Central WAS for 2007 and 2008 also provided that there would be no CBT (Colorado-Big Thompson Project) water available since CBT cannot be used in a permanent plan for augmentation (policy of Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District). As CBT water played a large role in the replacement supply for the proposed - 7 -