28

• Board Meeting Date: 3/18/2008
• Description: IWMD Section - Presentation of Agricultural Water Conservation Paper
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

Section 5
Legal and Engineering Considerations
With no formal change case involved, legal protections do not exist to protect
downstream junior water rights that have historically received water. If basin-wide
irrigation conservation measures are to he promoted on a broad scale, then
consideration should be given to the substantial effects this might cause including
reduced water available to junior water right holders.
Adjudicating a change of water rights can be time consuming and costly, and formal
notification is required by law. Even when no parties object to the change, the process
of water court approval takes a minimum of 3 months, and often much longer due to
the heavy case load of water court judges. If parties do oppose a change case, it can
take years to get a change decree approved by the court. In addition to paying
attorneys' fees, an applicant for a change of water rights generally must hire an
engineering consultant to prepare a report explaizwlg the technical aspects of the
change and develop an accounting form for administering the change.
Ensuring the continuation of historic return flow patterns to
While Colorado's legislature has protect downstream juniors is possibly the largest hurdle to
recently enacted legislation that overcome when dealing with agricultural water
th ~ t ~ ht t
au onzes a wa er ng owner o
lease water without formal conservation. To illustrate the complexities involved, the

adjudication of change of water Division Engineer's Office is currently in the process of

right
these types of leases are promulgating rules and regulations for agricultural water
,
only for short-term users in the Arkansas River Basin to ensure that irrigators

arrangements and do not converting to higher efficiency systems do not adversely

address more long-term or affect return flow patterns, thereby affecting the state's

permanent changes. ability to meet its compact obligations with the State of
Kansas. While Colorado water law allows the conversion of
irrigation systems to more efficient ones (i.e., flood to
sprinkler systems) without a formal change proceeding in the Water Courts, the
promulgation of rules is a recognition that these actions can have negative affects on
return flows and those re lying upon them.
Implementing agricultw-al water conservation measures may have other significant
effects other than downstream water right holders. For instance, flood irrigation and
seepage through earthen ditches and
,~ ~ ~ ..
canals provide for signficant aquifer I~.' ;-~
_.
recharge. In certain cases, domestic and `"~ ;; _ - y ~
irrigation wells have been impacted when - _
groundwater recharge from historical _
irrigation practices was not maintained. _
Return flows can also result in improved
riparian habitat and provide for base
stream flows, which help maintain year-
round fisheries that otherwise might not
exist. To illustrate, in urban areas, retunl
flows from lawn irrigation and o ther
DRAFT 5-2