|
<br />Comments to SWSI, November 3, 2003, 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 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 sales have aroused
<br />concern for lost agricultural activity, declining numbers of small farms and ranches, and
<br />secondary economic impacts 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 full engineering analyses to determine the transferable quantities of
<br />water, 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 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. Pankratz, "High court weighs well
<br />dispute", Denver Post p 3B, 20 Feb 03; AP story 20 Feb 03 Boulder Dailv Camera p. 2B).
<br />Litigants and others have insisted that only the water court adjudication process can provide
<br />adequately reliable protection of existing water rights ( See M. Hammond editorial comment
<br />"Colorado's water court system still best option", as well as positions on water transfers and
<br />agricultural efficiency by M. Kassen (Trout Unlimited), P. Binney (City of Aurora) and G. Walcher
<br />(Director, CO Dept.of 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 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 legislature of both expanding and limiting 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 bills, most recently 11 Mar 03, Denver Post, on
<br />HB 1001; see also, especially, HB 1318, but there are many other relevant pending bills; a short
<br />survey appeared on p 10A, Rockv Mountain News, of bills supported by the Governor, including
<br />state-wide water banking, interruptible supply contracts, and "conserved water rights" - "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 Platte situation (SB03-73),
<br />providing a compromise to allow out-of-priority well-users some additional time to file plans for
<br />augmentation of flow 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 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 />without improved technical 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 />
|