Laserfiche WebLink
SECWCD <br />February 16, 2006 <br />13 <br />RECORD OF PROCEEDING <br />input from the United States and the Compact Administration. It likely will take a few more <br />months before the decree can be finalized. <br />Mr. Leonhardt reported on December 29, 2005, the Arkansas Groundwater Users Association <br />(AGUA) filed its application for a Substitute Water Supply Plan (SWSP), to allow continued use of <br />the Excelsior Ditch water rights in AGUA's replacement plan for 2006. On January 27, legal <br />counsel submitted comments to the State Engineer's Office that included requesting that any <br />approval prohibit winter diversions from the Excelsior Ditch (to which AGUA has agreed for the <br />plan year from April 2006 to March 2007). Mr. Leonhardt said legal counsel's written report <br />summarizes their SWSP comments and a response they recently received from AGUA's engineer. <br />Mr. Leonhardt reported in Pueblo West's Hill Ranch transfer case (01 CW 152), Bruce Kroeker of <br />TZA Water Engineers completed the initial engineering analysis requested by the District. The <br />Board was provided a copy of his memorandum, which Bob Hamilton has shared with Pueblo West. <br />As indicated in the memorandum, there are some significant discrepancies with Pueblo West's <br />engineering, including the analysis of historically irrigated area, diversion records, and timing of <br />historic return flows that need to be replaced to the stream system. Mr. Kroeker and Bob Hamilton <br />have met with Pueblo West's consultant and Steve Harrison to discuss these issues. Following <br />resolution of the engineering discrepancies, legal counsel will work with District staff to provide <br />comments on Pueblo West's proposed decree so that settlement negotiations may move forward. <br />Mr. Leonhardt reported legal counsel executed a stipulation in the Florence case (99CW149), <br />involving changes to Florence's Union Ditch shares, as approved at last month's Board meeting. <br />Florence, and its co- applicants Coal Creek and Williamsburg, have approved the stipulation, which <br />counsel for Florence filed with the Water Court on February 2. There are still several other <br />objectors remaining in the case, including the Board of Water Works of Pueblo, Colorado Springs, <br />and the State and Division Engineers. The case remains scheduled for trial in September 2006. <br />Mr. Leonhardt reported in the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District's exchange application <br />(Case No. 04CW96), legal counsel has been working with counsel for the Upper Ark District to <br />resolve Southeastern's concerns in tandem with the Chaffee County RICD settlement negotiations. <br />In the interest of facilitating settlement between Upper Ark and Chaffee County in the RICD and <br />Upper Ark exchange cases, legal counsel is attempting to clarify how Upper Ark's Arkansas River <br />exchanges will operate in conjunction with the Chaffee County RICD's and the VFMP. Chaffee <br />County indicates that if these issues can be resolved, it will agree that Upper Ark's exchanges are <br />senior to the RICD. Upper Ark wants to ensure that terms and conditions on this point will be <br />consistent in its settlements with Chaffee County and Southeastern. Legal counsel is exploring a <br />stipulation for partial settlement, resolving Southeastern's objections to Upper Ark's exchanges on <br />the Arkansas River main stem. Such a stipulation may be ready for the Board's consideration next <br />month. <br />Lee Miller reported a confidential update from Jim Lochhead to the Colorado River Coalition on <br />Colorado River negotiations among the Basin States that summarizes the agreements reached by the <br />