Laserfiche WebLink
• There may be a way to tie in some of the Governor's energy visions with <br />helping out the farmers by supporting biofuel programs on these farms. <br />• Investigate proposals for a change in water right to change from a high <br />water use crop to a lower water use crop and sell the difference to <br />municipal water providers. This concept includes the possibility of credit <br />for salvaged water, which has always been problematic under Colorado <br />water law. Changes along these lines will require significant rethinking <br />and discussion of ramifications. <br />c. The water laws were modernized in 2002 and 2003 in several ways to <br />allow the State Engineer to approve SWSP's for plans pending in Water Court and to <br />approve plans submitted under SB03-73. <br />whic <br />Platte aug <br />and <br />wat <br />mos <br />monetary resources. This is a straightforward solution that does not seem to have ar <br />downsides. <br />e. Investigate possibility of extending the 90-day period for emergency <br />SWSPs (37-92-308(7)) and to allow emergency approvals for agricultural operations. <br />5. Ground Rules <br />a. Maintain Doctrine of Prior Appropriation System- South Platte River <br />basin is over-appropriated and existing body of laws, policies and rules are not perfect <br />but adequate to protect vested water rights. <br />b. Return flows must be maintained - but note that return flows being <br />affected by lined gravel pits, lined canals, more efficient irrigation systems, changes in <br />cropping patterns, and several other factors, and these changes do not currently require <br />maintenance of historical return flows. <br />In conclusion, there are no easy or simple solutions. If there were any they <br />would have been developed as the water users are famous for their creativity. This is a <br />situation where the water supply has been impacted by a long term drought period, <br />2001 to 2006, and has further been exacerbated by the competition for water and a lack <br />of cooperation in the South Platte River basin that other river basins such as the <br />Arkansas River and Rio Grande have been able to achieve. This is shown by the fact <br />that rules for ground water use in the Arkansas River basin were able to be promulgated <br />in 1996 and allowed the State Engineer and not the water court to approve replacement <br />d. A legal solution could include revising CRS 37-92-308 (3) (a) and (b), <br />h is the addition to the statutes by S603-73 whereby well owners in the South <br />River Basin were given additional years to develop and file a plan for <br />mentation. The well owners would still have to file a SWSP with the State Engineer <br />be subject to a public hearing. They would still have to find sufficient augmentation <br />er to allow some pumping, which is the main obstacle. This may allow the welts <br />t impacted by this more time to lease or develop additional water within their limited