Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Comments to SWSI, November 3t 2003, by John Wiener <br /> <br />18 <br /> <br />The Irrigation Efficiency Problem For Water Banking, other'Agriculture to <br /> <br />Municipality Transfers and IISaved or Salvaged WaterlJ Legislation <br /> <br />The problem: Moving water between agriculture and other uses - in a hurry <br /> <br />Current drought conditions along with the rapid growth of Colorado cities have led to <br />unprecedented levels 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 place as those safes have aroused <br />concern for rost agriculturat activity, declining numbers of small farms and ranches, and <br />secondary economic fmpacts on rural economies. The technical support needed to facilitate <br />these temporary transfers while protecting other water rights holders from injury is not well <br />developed. This is because such past transfers have been very largely confined to permanent <br />water rights sales and then some temporary lease-backs to agriculture of water purchased by <br />municipalities in anticipation of future need. Those permanent transfers from agricultural to <br />municipal ownership involved fun engineering analyses to determine the transferabre quantities of <br />watert so all rights were protected in the process. Now, the new transfers from agriculture to <br />temporary municipal use call for technical support that is qualitatively different from the normal. <br />Further, the litigation over State Engineer administration of well..user augmentation or <br />replacement flowsJ to preserve water rights in the South Platte basjn, has shown the centraJ <br />importance of credibUity for such transfers (see on this, H~ Pankratz, nHigh court weighs wen <br />dispute", Denver Post p 38,20 Feb 03; AP story 20 Feb 03 Boulder Dailv Camera p. 28). <br />Litigants and others have jnsisted that only the water court adjudication process can provide <br />adequatery reUable protection of existing water rights ( See M. Hammond editorial comment <br />uColorado.s water court system still best option", as weU as positions on water transfers and <br />agricurturar efficiency by M. Kassen (Trout UnHmUed), P. Binney (City of Aurora) and G. Walcher <br />(Director, CO Deptof Natural Resources), 09Mar03, Denver Post pp 1 E and 4E,,) <br /> <br />Most of the current explosion in transfers will 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 yett and injury to others would result in rapid reversals of pfans. In fact, as of <br />the end of January there was discussion in the legislature of both expanding and 'imiting this <br />authority, and litigation currently before the Colorado Supreme Court concerns the legality of <br />similar authorizations by the State Engineer. The interests are extensive, and the politics are <br />complicated. See legislative surveys on current bins, most recently 11 Mar 03, Denver Post, on <br />HB 1001; see alsoJ especially, HB 1318, but there are many other reJevant pending biUs; a short <br />survey appeared on p 10A, Rockv Mountain News, of bins supported by the Governor, including <br />state-wide water banking, interruptible suPP'Y contracts, and ..conserved water rightsU - ~.anows <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 Platte situation (SB03-73)t <br />providing a compromise to aHow out-ot-priority werl-users some additional time to fUe prans for <br />augmentation of flow to avojd injury to water rights; as of October, the results are complicated <br />and some well users are effectively looking at another year of shut down, according to informal <br />sources of information; others are said to be facing permanent closure of their wells. <br /> <br />So, as 2003 wears on with only 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 Colorado (and some other states) that can be easily transferred <br />wjthout improved technicaJ 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 PUot Programt in <br />