My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
29d
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
DayForward
>
1-1000
>
29d
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:38:13 PM
Creation date
11/13/2008 11:56:52 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
11/19/2008
Description
CF Section – Referred Non-Reimbursable Investments - Arkansas River Surface Water Rules Technical/Financial Assistance
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
The Pueblo C;hiertam Unline :: harmers leery as state moves on water rules rage ~ of s <br />possible. ' <br />About a year ago, Witte suggested efficiency rules for any surface improvements that might risk a new <br />challenge of compact violation by Kansas. Ditch lining, pipes, sprinklers or drip irrigation systems added after <br />1999 are covered. <br />Witte argued that the improvements, without such rules, increase the potential to increase consumptive use, <br />which is not allowed under the compact. They could also reduce return flows to downstream irrigators within <br />the state. <br />Systems fed by wells are exempt, because they are covered under 1996 well rules. Municipal improvements <br />are not mentioned because diversions of water from rights changed to municipal from agricultural in court <br />already take historic consumptive use into account. <br />The rules would not be administered in the same way in all parts of the valley, as now written. <br />Farmers under the Trinidad Dam and Reservoir Project are covered under previous conditions agreed to by <br />Kansas in 1966. The rules don't apply in designated groundwater basins or other areas not hydrologically <br />linked to the Arkansas River. Farmers on Fountain Creek, or above Lake Pueblo, would be able to apply for <br />general permits, which give the division engineer leeway to determine if a depletion to the river occurred. <br />Farmers in the Lower Arkansas Valley would be subject to a model that indicates the level of depletion based <br />on which ditch system they are in. Certain improvements on farms would not be regulated. Farmers could also <br />develop specific engineering for systems they have installed. <br />The state would determine if a depletion occurred as a result of the improvement and require the farmer to <br />reduce consumptive use to historic levels or find replacement water. <br />After sparring with Witte over language in the proposed rules, farmers were still miffed about the need for them <br />in the first place. <br />"What is the value of a permit?" asked Pueblo County farmer Tom Rusler. °What is the meaning?" <br />"There are two types of permits," Witte replied. "If it does not cause a compact violation, you're good to go. Or, <br />you have to have a replacement plan to maintain the return flow." <br />The Colorado Water Conservation Board, a separate office from the Division of Water Resources, will consider <br />a $250,000 grant to find solutions to assist farmers with engineering or replacement water at its meeting in <br />Denver this week. <br />The Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District board will also meet this week on whether it would act <br />as the lead agency for the grant. <br />"It's an appropriate place for us to be," said John Singletary, chairman of the Lower Ark board. <br />http://www.chieftain.com/articles/2008/ 11 / 17/news/locaUdoc4921081 b4bd 16696449208.... 11 / 18/2008 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.