Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Lower Arkansas River Water Conservation Strategy <br /> <br />Introduction <br /> <br />With the drought of 2002, water rights have become a topic of intense discussion at every <br />level of our Colorado society. What will we do if the drought continues? Various groups have <br />advocated principles to guide us as we seek our way, some emphasizing leasing or interruptible <br />supply agreements to keep the water on the farms and ranches. Meanwhile the agricultural <br />community rightfully worries that enthusiastic legislators will severely complicate transfers, <br />voiding the value of their senior water rights. <br /> <br />The purpose of this paper is to propose a way to bring agricultural water to market. The <br />tenets of the Prior Appropriation Doctrine must be met, along with the administrative <br />requirements of the State Engineers Office. Perhaps a global approach to conservation, salvage <br />and dry-up in the Lower Arkansas Valley could offer people a range of choices in selling or <br />leasing their water while actually improving regional economic perrormance. <br /> <br />Assumptions <br /> <br />1. The Lower Arkansas Water Conservancy District was created by voters in Pueblo, <br />Crowley, Otero, Bent and Prowers Counties with an ad valorem tax of 1.5 mills. The Board of <br />the District has publicly stated its intention to Aprotect@ water rights in the Valley. <br /> <br />2. Section 37-92-302 (5) C.R.S. provides that water conservancy district may initiate and <br />implement plans for augmentation for the benefit of all water users within their boundaries. <br /> <br />3. The December 2002 Division 2 Resume included several applications for Change of <br />Water Rights and Plan for Augmentation for water rights in the lower Valley. (02CW181 <br />LAWMA, 02CW183 High Plains A & M) <br /> <br />4. The Prior Appropriation Doctrine, as interpreted by Colorado courts, requires a <br />decreed irrigation water right limit use to the acreage described in the decree absent a water court <br />case. In the change case, historic consumptive use and non-injury are determined. Non-injury <br />often includes a means of replicating the historic return flow patterns to satisfy downstream <br />appropriators. <br /> <br />5. Some lands under older ditches have lost their productiveness, either from soil <br />contamination or seepage from the ditch. Continued irrigation of these lands occurs to protect <br />the water rights even though the effort is economically a net loss. <br />