Laserfiche WebLink
Section 5 <br />Legal and Engineering Considerations <br />With no formal change case involved, legal protections do not exist to protect <br />downstreanl juiuor water rights that 11ave historically received water. If basul-wide <br />irrigation conservation ineasures are to be promoted on a broad scale, then <br />consideration should be given to the substantial effects this might cause ulcluding <br />reduced water available to jwlior water right 1lolders. <br />Adjudicating a change of water rights can be time consuining and costly, and formal <br />notification is required by law. Even when no parties object to the change, the process <br />of water court approval takes a minimunl of 3 nlonths, and often much longer due to <br />the heavy case load of water court judges. If parties do oppose a cllange case, it can <br />take years to get a cllange decree approved by the court. In addition to paying <br />attorneys' fees, an applicant for a change of water rights geilerally nlust 11ire an <br />engineering consultant to prepare a report explaining the technical aspects of the <br />change and develop an accounting form for adininistering the cllange. <br />~~~ <br />While Colorado s legislature has Ensuruzg the contuzuation of historic return flow patterns to <br /> <br />recently enacted legislation that protect downstreanl jtuziors is possiUly the largest hurdle to <br /> <br />; authorizes a water right owner to overconle w11en dealing with agricultural water <br />i <br />T <br />ill <br />h <br />l <br />i <br />i <br />i <br />l <br />h <br />d <br /> <br />lease water without formal conservat <br />on. <br />ustrate t <br />e conlp <br />nvo <br />ve <br />o <br />ex <br />t <br />es <br />, t <br />e <br /> <br />; adjudication of change of water Division Enb zeer's Office is currently uz the process of <br /> <br />. right, these types of leases are proinulgating rules and reb tlations for agricultural water <br /> <br />, Only fOr ShOrt-term users u1 the Arkansas P~iver Basin to ensure that irrigators <br /> <br />arrangements and do not convertulg to higher efficiency systenls do not adversely <br />' <br /> <br />address more long-term or affect return flow patterns, thereby affectuzg the state <br />s <br /> <br />permanent Changes. ~bility to meet its compact obligations with the State of <br /> Kansas. While Colorado water law allows the conversion of <br /> irrigation systenls to nlore efficient ones (i.e., flood to <br />sprinkler systenls) witllout a formal cllange proceedulg u1 the Water Courts, the <br />pronlulgation of rules is a recognition that these actions can have negative affects on <br />return flows and those re lying upon thenl. <br />Inlplenlenting agricultural water conservation measures may have other significant <br />effects other than downstreanl water right holders. For instance, flood irrigation and <br />seepage tllrough earthen ditches and ~~ <br />~ ~'~' _~ , '~ <br />canals provide for significant aquifer ~_ ~ _ . -"~ ~ ~ <br />recharge. In certain cases, domestic and <br />irrigation wells 11ave been inlpacted when <br />groundwater recharge fron111istorical <br />irrigation practices was not maintained. <br />Return flows can also result in improved <br />riparian habitat and provide for base <br />streanl flows, wllich help nlaintain year- <br />round fislleries t11at otllerwise nlight not <br />exist. To illustrate, uz urban areas, return <br />flows from lawn irrigation and otller <br />DRAFT 5-2 <br />