Laserfiche WebLink
� <br />, <br />' <br />r <br />' <br />� <br />Groundwater Model has indicated that ground water impacts from well pumping that <br />occurred dec�des ago will increase, it was expected that a Compac# Compliance <br />Pipeline project w4uld be necessary to offset calculated ground wat�.r impacts; <br />however, it was assurr�ed that a pipeline project would not be needed for a number of <br />years, especially if precipitation retumed to normal and programs to retire irrigated <br />acreage were implemented. The Compact Accounting for 2405 and 2006 therefore <br />carr1e as a surprise and prompted action by the State Engineer and the RRWCD. <br />The Colorado State Engineer has prQpo�ed rules and regulatians to curtail diversions <br />within a Curtailment �one three mil�s from the North Fork of the Republican River, <br />Chi�f Cr�ek, the Arikaree River, tMe South Fork of #he Republican River, and Landsman <br />Creek beginning in 2Q09 if the State of GQlorado is not in complian�e with the Compact. <br />The Final Settlerr�ent Stipulation allows the acquisition or construction of wells for the <br />� purppse of offsetting stream depl�tions in order to comply with a State's corrtpact <br />allocations, prQVided fihat such wells do not cause any new net depletion to stream flc�w <br />either annually or long-term. The Stipulation also provides th�t augmentation plans and <br />� related accounting procedures s�bmitted und�r this provision of the Stipu��tion shall be <br />approved by the Republican F�iver Compact Administration (RRCA) prior to <br />implem�ntation. The Stipulafion further provides th$t augmentation cr�dit for wells <br />' acquired or eonstructed for the purpose c�f offsetting stre�m depletions �hall b� <br />calculated in accordance with h�RCA Accounting Proc�dures and by using tM� RRCA <br />Groundwater Model. <br />' <br />� <br />' <br />' <br />� <br />LJ <br />� <br />� <br />1 <br />' <br />3.2. Analysis of Alternatives <br />1. No action. <br />2. Purchase existing right� to designated ground water and transfer the <br />historical consumptive use of tttose rights to a Compact Compliance <br />Pipeline. <br />3. Cons#ruct new wells based on new appropri�tions and/or amendments to <br />the Ground Water Comn�ission rules and regulations to provide a water <br />supply for a Compact Compliartce Pipeline. <br />3.3. Altern�tive 1 <br />No action would result in the State of �olorado exceeding its allocations under the <br />Compact for decades int4 the future. The Colorado State Engin�er's proposed rules <br />and regulations will curtail diversion� within a�urtailrt�ent �one, but tt�e�e CompaGt <br />Rules will not achieve compact compliance without a Camp�ct Corripliance Pipeline. <br />Because Nebraska and Coloradc� will undaubtedfy exceed their �mpact alloc�tions in <br />the first five-year running average (2Q03-2007), Kansas will likely bring an action to <br />enforc� compliance witM the Compact. Thus, no acticm woUld likely lead to a demand <br />thet aU well purr�ping in the Republican River Basin in Colorado be curtailed �nd that the <br />State of Colorado pay �iam�ges for exceeding its comp�ct al�oeations. Turr�ing rr�ore <br />than 5Op,000 irrigated acres in tMe basin into dryland farms or rangeland would have a <br />5 <br />