7777 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

So, Senate BillS may pose some problems. I don't recall enough at this moment to know whether I would say it allows for the flexibility to pump heavily once every 20 years and then not pump at all for 19 out of 20 years. There may need to be some modification made to that. Q: Can the assets of those who have rights storage and delivery systems be optimized through integration, i.e., Northern and Denver? Can the sovereignty over water supplies and rights in the future be protected? A: That is one of the most challenging institutional aspects of integrating any group of water supply systems. I think from an engineering perspective you can take five different systems, determine their individual yields, and then operate them in an integrated fashion with a few minor additions for facilities and come up with a greater yield than the sum of those five. A very interesting institutional question is who retains ownership over what? How do you protect each player in the game so that player keeps as much yield as he would have had to begin with? Who gets call to the synergy, if any, that is generated in those yields? Those are questions that we wisely left for the political scientists to try and answer. We know they exist. We left them in the report as concerns, major concerns, to integrating any systems. Again, it was beyond the scope of our study, and frankly beyond my expertise, to address that. One of our suggestions to the Water Conservation Board and DNR would be that people with understanding and knowledge of the institutional dimension of this address those sorts of questions, because they would have to be answered. Mayor Carpenter evinced a certain reluctance, I think, to be involved in a system that would essentially confiscate everyone's water rights and then turn around and say, OK, here is your share of what we think you get. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about a system where everyone retains ownership and control of their assets, cooperatively manages those assets and those facilities so as to not diminish their own yield, but provide for additional yield to the group as a whole. How do you slice up that windfall? Who pays? Who gets it? Very interesting questions. Q: (I) You and the other speakers have talked about the competition between Front Range municipal water systems. Would you please describe two or three instances of such competition. (2) Don't the interruptible supply or first-use agreements require the same type of burdensome water court proceedings as a requirement for straightforward change proceedings? A: Competition among water systems -- well, the competition exists. in an operational sense in that we allocate our water rights according to the Prior Appropriation Doctrine. One city having more senior water rights can call water out past another city that may have junior water rights. It happens every day in every stretch of the river. In that sense, there is competition. With respect to procuring additional supplies, thankfully we are more cooperative than we are competitive now. Ever since the South Platte participation agreement and storage agreement there has been an amazing amount of cooperation among water 36