Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Comments to SWSI, November 3, 2003t by John Wiener <br /> <br />18 <br /> <br />The Irrigation Efficiency Problem For Water Banking, otherAgriculture to <br /> <br />Municipality Transfers and "Saved or Salvaged Water" Legislation <br /> <br />The problem: Moving water between agriculture and other uses - in a hurry <br /> <br />CUrrent drought conditions arong with the rapid growth of Coforado cities have led to <br />unprecedented 'evels of temporary transfers of agricultural water to municipal use (Rockv <br />Mountain News January 11, 2003, and see appended items). This is occurring in addition to the <br />steadier permanent sales of water to cities, and it is taking pface as those sales have aroused <br />concern for lost agricultural activity, declining numbers of smaU farms and ranches, and <br />secondary economic impacts on rural economies. The technicaf support needed to facilitate <br />these temporary transfers while protecting other water rights holders trom injury is not well <br />devefoped. This;s because such past transfers have been very largely confined to permanent <br />water rights sales and then some temporary lease-backs to agrfculture of water purchased by <br />municipalities in anticipation of future need. Those permanent transfers from agricultural to <br />municipal ownership involved full engineering analyses to determine the transferable quantities of <br />water, so aJr rights were protected in the process. Nowt the new transfers from agriculture to <br />temporary municipaf use caf! for technical support that is qualitatively different from the normal. <br />Further, the litigation over State Engineer admir1istration of wen-user augmentation or <br />replacement flows, to preserve water rights in the South Platte basin, has shown the central <br />importance of credibility for such transfers (see on this, H. Pankratzt UHigh court weighs weU <br />dispute", Denver Post p 38,20 Feb 03; AP story 20 Feb 03 Boulder Dailv Camera p. 28). <br />Litigants and others have insisted that only the water court adjudication process can provide <br />adequately reliabfe protection of existing water rights ( See M~ Hammond editorial comment <br />"Colorado's water court system still best optjon'\ as weU as positions on water transfers and <br />agricultural efficiency by M. Kassen (Trout Unlimited)t P. Binney (City of Aurora) and G. Walcher <br />(Director, CO Dept.of Naturat Resources), 09Mar03, Denver Post pp 1 E and 4E.) <br /> <br />Most of the current explosion in transfers wUI be legal under some form of authority for temporary <br />substitute water supply plans or drought arrangements, subject to short-term approval by the <br />State Engineer, and limited in duration. But, the true costs and impacts are not known with <br />sufficient certainty yet, and injury to others would result in rapid reversals of plans. In fact, as of <br />the end of January there was discussion in the regislature of both expanding and limiting this <br />authority, and litigation currently before the Colorado Supreme Court concerns the legality of <br />slmilar authorizations by the State Engineer. The interests are extensive, and the politics are <br />compUcated. See legislative surveys on current bills, most recently 11 Mar 03, Denver Post, on <br />HB 1001; see alsot especially, H B 1318, but there are many other relevant pending bills; a short <br />survey appeared on p 10A, Rockv Mountain News, of bUls supported by the Governor, incJuding <br />state-wide water banking, interruptible supply contracts, and "conserved water rightsU - "allows <br />cities to work with farmers and ranchers to use water conserved on farms through more efficient <br />irrigation practices.'. In the end, there was legislation on the South Pratte situation (8803-73), <br />providing a compromise to arrow out-af-priority wel1-users some additionaf time to file plans for <br />augmentation of frow to avoid injury to water rights; as of October, the results are complicated <br />and some well users are effectively looking at another year of shut downt according to jnformal <br />sources of information; others are said to be facing permanent erasure of their wells. <br /> <br />SOt as 2003 wears on with onry partial easing of the drought, what can the technical communities <br />offer in support of the new transfers. to avoid injury to others, and allow flexibility in water use? <br /> <br />Different kinds of water - the easy stuff has been done <br /> <br />There are two kinds of water in Co~orado (and some other states) that can be easiry transferred <br />without improved technjcal support, but they are limited in quantity. These are some of the water <br />which is in storage in a reservoir, and water which is imported by a trans...basin diversion~ Stored <br />water has been the subject of an experiment in the Arkansas River Water Bank Pilot Program, in <br />