FLOOD10333 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Q. Untranscribable. A. I don't know thenwnber. Q. Untranscribable A. (David Harrison) Let me address that before Hal. Remember, a 1946 well is not in priority in the Arkansas basin as against the Catlin Canal or the Amity Canal or the Buffalo Canal except for a few days every year. The issue of pre-compact and post-compact is effectively insignificant when it comes to these rules, because all the wells that are junior to 1900 are going to be looked upon by the senior surface ditches to replace their injury to those ditches. It is 15,000 acre-feet only nms; it only provides an off-set for pre-compact wells as it relates to the Kansas obligation. So, there doesn't need to be a whole lot of determination about when a well is in or out of priority vis-a-vis the compact. The issue is whether or not the well and its subsequent depletions will be in or out of priority vis-a-vis all the senior water rights of Colorado. A 1930 water right, for example, would have no significance at all for the bulk of the replacement obligation that most wells have. That obligation nms to those people in the audience here who own the senior surface rights who the studies have now shown the wells are impacted. Let me say one other thing about the 15,000 acre-feet. That was the best that Colorado could do. Colorado's own evidence, evidence that was produced in prior proceedings, suggested that the amount of pumping by wells that existed prior to 1948 was in that vicinity. The Master didn't grab this out of the air. The State of Colorado and water users in Colorado had used a number similar to that in previous Colorado proceedings that were of record and were introduced into evidence in this case. Colorado's efforts to tie the amount of pre-compact pwnping to the wells' water rights adjudicated in 1972 weren't successful, in part because our own people, in prior administrations and prior generations, had taken the position that the amount of pwnping that had occurred was about that amount. It's a fact of historical evidence that existed within Colorado's own archives that led , in part, to that nwnber. So I just wanted you to be clear on that. (Hal Simpson) David's correct. If you have any more specific questions, I'll take a shot a them. Q. Untranscribable. A. When you say, "those wells," you're talking about pre-compact wells? As David indicated, 99% of the time any well will be subject to call by a senior water right, senior surface water right. It's going to be very unusual, but this year was one of those years. We had John Martin filling and the call shifted, I think significantly; in some places there was no call, and so under those conditions wells, had they been operating under the rules that I am proposing, just would not have had to make a replacement because nobody was being injured. But soon as John Martin started storing again, the call went back to 48, the call gradually came on more senior route irrigation season. In most cases, 99% of the time or 95% of the time, wells are going to have to replace depletions to senior surface water rights. The 15,000 only comes into playas determining what we owe Kansas as far as replacement to useable state line flows. Let me make one other point about wells. Remember, a well's impact on the stream is not an instantaneous impact. It is almost always a deferred impact, and so the fact that you have two days where you have a free river, assuming you don't have any surface water rights, you can go ahead and pump your well. The problem is, that maybe for that two days, first of all, you're not going to have any impact on the river anyway because . the well's impact won't get to the river in those two days, a week, two weeks, a month later your impact arrives at the river. Now, the call is 1876. You still owe the water even though the pumping occurred at a time when there was a free river, so looking at priority and looking at how we have to work wells back and forth is more complicated than simply saying, "If there's a free river I don't owe anything." That may be true on that day, but that doesn't mean that the impact caused by your pumping that occurs when the call is against the Amity's number one or something won't be required to be replaced. It will. That's why using a well association is such a good idea for most well owners., because they will acquire larger blocks of water that they will have available to take care of these variances in how the demand and the supply match up vis a vis well pumping at a particular time. Arkansas River Basin Water Forum 30 itA River of Dreams and Realities"