30 ‎(3)‎

• Board Meeting Date: 5/21/2008
• 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 be 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 f ormal
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' f ees, an applicant f or a change of water rights generally must hire an
engineering consultant to prepare a report explaining the technical aspects of the
change and develop an accounting f orm f or administering the change.

While Colorado's legislature has Ensuring the continuation of historic return flow patterns to
'

recent) enacted le islation that
Y g rotect downstream
uniors is ossibl the lar est hurdle to
p ~ p y g

authorizes a water right owner to overcome when dealing with agricultural water

lease water without formal conservation. To illustrate the com lexities involved the
p

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

ri ht, these t es of leases are
g Yp romul atin rules and re ulations for a ricultural water
p g g g g

onl for short-term
~ users in the Arkansas River Basin to ensure that irri ators
g

arran ements and do not
g convertin to hi her efficienc s stems do not adverse)
g g y y y
'

address more long-term or of f ect return flow atterns, thereb of f ectin the state
s
p y g
rm n n h n
pe aetcages. 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 f lows and those relying upon them.
Implementing agricultural water conservation measures may have other significant
effects other than downstream water right holders. For instance, f lood irrigation and
seepage through earthen ditches and
canals provide f or signif icant aquif er
recharge. In certain cases, domestic and
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 f or base
stream flows, which help maintain year-
round fisheries that otherwise might not
exist. To illustrate, in urban areas, return
f lows f rom lawn irrigation and other
DRAFT 5-2