FLOOD11143 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

· If Chatfield space is acquired, many acre5 would remain irrigated, thus protecting a large wildlife habitat. Negative aspects of not acquiring ~pace would be the drying up of agriculture lands~ leading to a loss of wi Idli fe habitat. · Gravel pit storage space is approximately $3300-4000 for lined space and there is limited availability for the next ten to twenty years. . The current Chatfield estimate ofapproximatc1y $5,OOO/AF is reasonable and affordable to Central. · Small to\vns like Fort Lupton, PlaitevilJe, Gilcrest, La Salle, Kersey, Wiggins, Fort Morgan, and Hudson rely heavily on agric.ulture and to some extent Chatfield space will help the continued viability and economies in these towns. · The Lower South Platte water users need to plan for the future because cmrently metro area cities are not reu~ing their effluent and as they develop this potential about 60% of wintertime flow belongs to them. Reduced river t10\VS arc another reason why CCWeD needs to find additional water such as Chatl1eld to keep larmers operating. . Once land in Weld County loses its water rights it goes from approximately S3,000 an acre to $300 an acre. Description of Other Alternatives that Achieve Equivalent Bcnct1ts . If Chatfield Storage spacc isn't made available then CC\VCD would pursue gravel pit storage. · However, it is difficult to plan for this because of the follO\ving reasons: Most of'the cun-ent gravel pit storage is spoken for, there are many entities competing for this storage space, and it could be ten to twenty years bcfore new storage space becomes available. · If Chatfield Storage Space iSll 't available or CCWCD can't acquire additional gravel pit stor.1ge, CCWeD would be forced to reduce it.s quota (the amount of\vater irrigator~ can pump from their alluvial wells). This would have a dramatic negative impact on agriculture in the South Platte Basin~ as many farmers would have to go out of business because of the cut in their watcr supplies. This would also have a negative impact on the wildlife habitat on this irrigated ground. Colorado Water Rights Colorado has operated under thc Doctrine ol'rrior Appropriation - "first in timc~ first in right" - since the late 1800s, and developed an extensive water supply based on this management system. Most surH~ce water rights (ditches) "vere developed in the 1800's, while most groundwater rights (wells) were installed in the mid-1900's. In 1969, all non-domestic wcl1s. in the South Platte River Basin were placed in the priority system. Now all the wells have a priority date as. well. When groundwater is pumped from an alluvial aquifer, depletion occllt's. I f this depletion prevents surface water users from rccei ving th~ir entitled allotment of water, "injury" occurs. Under Colorado law, senior water right hold~rs could direct the Statc to stop thesc junior divers.ions so they are not injured. Thc State Legislature realized that operating wells strictly by this priority system would result in economic disaster for many people since wells would rarely be in priority during the irrigation season.