minutes_04_08_ark_basin - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

compact on the Arkansas River in order to protect our right to consume the water the state had water rights for in 1948. Colorado wanted to end litigation with Kansas and to be sure that we got federal support for water storage. Kansas wanted a measurement compact and they wanted storage. In 1985 Kansas filed suit, claiming that Pueblo Reservoir, Trinidad Reservoir, and high-capacity irrigation wells resulted in new reductions of water to Kansas. The State of Colorado is now required to review every five years, and ensure that Kansas is still getting the water due, regardless of improvement to agricultural efficiency. To convert from surface water floods (65% efficient) to pivot irrigation (75% efficient) causes a potential increase of 10% in consumption. Kansas could have a case against Colorado, in that return flows would lessen. We are preparing to report to Kansas on the 5-year cycle, and want to be prepared. Dick Wolfe, State Engineer: Steve Witte had the leadership and vision to go ahead with developing some ag efficiency rules and build relationships with water users in order to avoid future litigation with Kansas. Rather than calling them ag efficiency rules, we are now calling them surface water irrigation consumption rules. We have been holding meetings with water user associations and groups, to help build trust with key representatives with the hopes that they will go back to their water user groups. We want to solve this problem in Colorado, and prevent Kansas from dictating the solution. We've got to recognize that we have a problem, but that the problem is solvable. There are some key issues that need to be dealt with, such as retroactivity, the cost of evaluating these systems and the extent they've caused increased consumption, and how we will deal with that. We have created an advisory committee. Based on the meetings we've had, and the interested parties we think should be at the table, I have created 20 opportunities for people to participate so that representatives of all interested parties are on the committee. There are two core things that will be included in the scope of the advisory committee, which are 1) to develop creative solutions that recognize and allow for the benefits of improvements to irrigation systems, including but not limited to the water quality benefits and labor-saving benefits while still meeting the compact obligation and 2) provide advice to and coordinate with the State Engineer on the development and implementation of new compact rules relating to improvements to surface water irrigation systems in the Arkansas River Basin. We are hopeful that we can come up with a revised set of rules so that folks are still encouraged to improve Ag efficiency, and are able to still comply with the compact. A lot of good information has been gathered. We're working with Dr. Gates to continue studying and gather data. There are situations where efficiency improvements have NOT impacted water supply to Kansas. We want to continue to collect information, so we can develop some kind of presumptive factors, to streamline the process, minimize cost to the users and recognize benefits of Ag efficiency. So we're going to be continue to have more meetings this month. Will establish the advisory committee within the next 30 days. We are now taking nominations for positions on the committee. We'll try to answer most of your questions. We're not trying to hide anything, but are still gathering information. Take questions from today; share them with the advisory committee for resolution. Q&A: How do the states identify the status quo that existed when the compact was signed? When the litigation was brought in 1985 (under Jeris), the State of Colorado undertook an effort to gather all the data that could be found. We understood that what happened in the 1930s and 40s would be crucial for our defense of the compact in the future. The information has been compiled, and is included in the Hydrologic Institutional Model. There is a baseline in the model that came from that information. As of 1948 did Colorado's consumption include a) non-beneficial up-flux from a high water table and b) tamarisk? The compact treats natural consumption as a neutral. It's just there. It doesn't change Colorado's obligation to Kansas. At some point doesn't the State of Colorado need to fight for water preservation and those rights rather than look at additional ways to accommodate the State of Kansas with any further augmentation on surface owner's rights that have priorities going back into the 1800s? We spent 20 years trying to limit to the greatest extent possible the amount of additional water which we would owe the -,