Laserfiche WebLink
State of Kansas. That's what this fight is about - how to send the minimum amount of water owed to <br />Kansas and no more. <br />Are cities subject to water efficiency rules? If not, why not? For the most part, municipal water <br />supplies use trans-mountain diversions and wells. These are already covered by use rules. <br />If center-pivot sprinklers are an efficient means of irrigating land, would it not be accurate that <br />they would use less water rather than more, actually using less than flood irrigation methods? The issue <br />is consumption. When you use flood irrigation, approximately 50% of the water runs off. From the river <br />system standpoint that's not inefficient because that 50% then makes up flows for users downstream. <br />Certainly a pivot sprinkler can use less water in terms of physical application, but there is little if any <br />runoff. As long as the water not used by the pivot is put in the river, you are right. This is not the history <br />of what is done in agriculture. The farmer is likely to find a use for the saved water in another part of his <br />system to improve his productivity and his profit margin. It's a natural thing and there's nothing wrong <br />with it, except the water that used to go back to the river is now not getting there. Some of that flood <br />irrigation water historically went to Kansas. That extra water is now being consumed and must be <br />accounted for. <br />What do you consider to be a water-short ditch? Ditches that are curtailed under the priority <br />system because there's insufficient water in the stream and the producers under that ditch do not get a <br />full supply in any given year is awater-short ditch. <br />If for every one CFS you irrigate 40 - 50 acres, is that considered a full right? I don't know. I <br />would think it depends on soil type, slope of the field, the application method, and the amount of time that <br />one CFS is in priority. <br />If some type of agreement is reached on efficiency and put into action, what assurance do we <br />have that Kansas won't be back asking for more water in the future? As long as we don't increase <br />consumption over the level that occurred in 1948, they will not be back. <br />Why did the State of Colorado pay the compact damages to the State of Kansas? Why <br />shouldn't the well owners have been responsible? The State of Colorado is the signatory to the compact. <br />It's the State of Colorado's responsibility to ensure that the terms of the compact are complied with, not <br />specific individuals or individual land-owners. Under use rules, in the future, it will be the responsibility of <br />well-owners to handle arrearages to the State of Kansas. <br />We should not renegotiate the compact, but is it possible to negotiate shortages and surpluses <br />through policy, like Colorado River users recently did? Yes, if both states can agree. Kansas has been <br />adamantly opposed to that. They believe Colorado shouldn't be able to pour water in during a wet year, <br />and then give Kansas nothing in a dry year. They want it every single year. <br />As stated that prior to the building of Pueblo, our shrink was 15 - 17% and with Clearwater our <br />shrink is 20 - 30%, how is our use of polyacrymalide increasing our consumption? Just like anything <br />else, if the use of polyacrymalide makes more water available, which then is consumed by producers <br />downstream, Kansas will receive less water, which must be accounted for. <br />If total acreage under a ditch is the same as before the compact other than in drought years, <br />what is the amount of water needed to be a full right? Again, depends on soil type, crop type, same as <br />previous question. <br />In hindsight, wouldn't Colorado be better off with a gauged stipulation in the compact rather <br />than a consumptive stipulation? That is in the eyes of the beholder. Sometimes it seems worse, but <br />we're the only river in the state where ALL of the pre-compact water rights are absolutely protected. The <br />negotiators of this compact thought they were making the best deal. <br />Isn't it true that increased consumption hurts Colorado water right owners as well as Kansas? <br />Yes. In our system, inefficient irrigation results in water for our neighbors. Historically, the return flows <br />4 <br />