Laserfiche WebLink
burden for any shortage caused by an approved prepayment of depletions? Is` the Task <br />Force willing to require water users to exercise costly diligence each time a prepayment <br />plan is submitted, despite the fact that simply replacing depletions, location and amount <br />would othenvise protect that user without the need for considering prepayment options? <br />ix) As prepayment has been discussed, it also seems that senior water users will have the <br />burden of illustrating that they are injured by prepayment, which is a shift in the burden of <br />proof normally required by the water court with regarii to an augmentation plan. <br />6) Option 6: Use of Colorado-Big Thompson water in permanent augmentation plans. <br />i) The Colorado-Big Thompson project was developed by the United States, is now owned <br />and administered by the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and is paid for by <br />taxpayers within the District. As such, the constituents, of the Disirict, and not the Task <br />Force, should make decisions regarding use of this water just the same as other water users <br />have the right to determine how their water rights will be used. The Northern District <br />made such a determination in 2005 when it adopted a policy that CBT water cannot be <br />used in decreed augmentation plans. The Task Force should not attempt to solve the <br />problems of well users by securing water rights owned by others to that purpose. If <br />importations from the West Slope are an option to assi,st the wells, then the Task Force <br />should make recommendations for projects to do so, not to take water from existing <br />projects. <br />ii) The Northern District extends from the foothills to the .state line along the South Platte <br />River. The constituent taxpayers of the District are entitled to the benefits of all CBT water <br />available within its boundaries. Many of the District's constituents are able to receive the <br />benefit of the CBT water only by receiving return flows,from initial direct delivery of the <br />water. In fact, the onlv way District taxpayers below F'ort Morgan can receive any benefit <br />from CBT water is by the availability of return flows from CBT water in the South Platte <br />River. Dedication of CBT water to augmentation use would remove those return flows <br />from the river and leave downstream taxpayers with nco benefit in return for their tax <br />dollars. If District constituents are receiving no benefit from CBT water, then the Task <br />Force needs to consider provisions that would allow them to withdraw from the District. <br />iii) Use of CBT water is an issue that affects the West Slope as much as the South Platte River <br />Basin and is therefore beyond the scope of the executive order. The majority of CBT water <br />is diverted from the West Slope in Grand County. Among other concerns, West Slope <br />interests may perceive use of CBT water for augmentation as violating Senate Document <br />80, the 1937 federal authorization for the CBT project; violating the CBT project's 1938 <br />repayment contract; improperly enlarging the CBT prnject's demand for Western Slope <br />water; and involving complex federal permitting issues. The Task Force cannot consider <br />this proposal without detailed discussions with YYest Slope interests who are not part of the <br />Task Force. <br />9