Laserfiche WebLink
Aurora Concept Paper is Put on Hold <br />Don't worry, the District has <br />not made any deals with the City <br />of Aurora regarding the Rocky <br />Ford Ditch water rights and new <br />storage projects. District Board <br />members and the PSOP <br />Implementation Committee did <br />discuss ideas on how Aurora's <br />involvement in the proposed <br />enlargement of Pueblo Reservoir <br />could benefit the water users in <br />the District, and there was even a <br />concept discussed that would <br />have had the District purchase the <br />Rocky Ford Ditch water rights <br />and then lease a portion of that <br />water to Aurora. But, those ideas, <br />which may have some merit in <br />the future, have been put on hold. <br />After hearing about these <br />concepts from District staff and <br />officials from the City of Aurora, <br />the District Board and the PSOP <br />Implementation Committee put <br />the ideas on hold. They believed <br />that it is more important for the <br />District, through its' Water <br />Activity Enterprise, to stay <br />focused on meeting the needs of <br />water users in the District <br />through the implementation of <br />the Preferred Storage Options <br />Plan. The ideas may again be <br />discussed if water users in the <br />District decide not to develop <br />the full 75,000 acre -feet of <br />additional space at Pueblo <br />Reservoir, and if community <br />leaders in the Arkansas Valley <br />want to consider the idea of <br />having the District buy water <br />rights for use in the District or <br />lease out of the District. <br />While these ideas would <br />involve the use of newly <br />developed storage space at <br />Pueblo Reservoir, the District <br />Board of Directors has made it <br />clear that they do not support <br />Aurora's use of existing Fry - <br />Ark Project storage space to <br />move water out of the basin. <br />Although Aurora pays for the <br />use of Project storage and their <br />storage is subject to spill first, <br />the District believes that <br />Reclamation should not contract <br />with the City of Aurora because <br />they are not a taxpaying entity <br />in the District and the Fry -Ark <br />Project was intended to benefit <br />individuals within the nine- <br />RECLAMATION REFORM ACT <br />2001 REPORTING GUIDELINES <br />In 1982 United States <br />Congress passed, "Reclamation <br />Reform Act (RRA) 1982." This <br />Act covers all reclamation <br />Projects in seventeen western <br />states. The members of the <br />Southeastern Colorado Water <br />Conservancy Board of Directors <br />amended our repayment <br />contract with the U.S. Bureau of <br />Reclamation in 1984 to bring <br />our District into compliance <br />with the new Act. <br />Since 1984 the District staff <br />has worked with officials from <br />the Bureau of Reclamation, <br />individual landholders, and <br />officials from the various ditch <br />companies to obtain the <br />necessary information and <br />complete the required forms. <br />As required by federal law, the <br />completed forms are retained in <br />the District office. <br />2 <br />county service area of the <br />District. <br />The District will have this <br />debate with the Bureau of <br />Reclamation over the next <br />several months, but the outcome <br />is uncertain. In 1986 the District <br />took the same position, but <br />Reclamation, owner of the <br />Project, disagreed and executed a <br />contract with Aurora for a <br />temporary storage at Pueblo <br />Reservoir. <br />So, this discussion of what to <br />do with Aurora has two issues - <br />1) should Aurora participate in <br />the development of new storage <br />space under the PSOP, and 2) <br />should Aurora be allowed to use <br />existing Fry -Ark Project storage? <br />There may be a third issue — <br />should the District get in the <br />business of buying water rights <br />for use in the District and operate <br />a water bank? <br />If you have any ideas on these <br />issues give us a call. We need <br />your input. <br />Written by: Steve Arveschoug, <br />General Manager, SECWCD <br />S dEppptMENT OF iNE lN,tR�o9 In 2001 <br />e a c h <br />-' landholder <br />will be <br />required to <br />complete RRA verification <br />form (FORM 7 -21 VERIFY <br />2001). If irrigable <br />landholdings, owned or leased, <br />exceed 240 acres, landholders <br />must complete the RRA <br />verification form in order for <br />your landholdings to receive <br />Project Water, Winter Water, or <br />other water that has benefited <br />from Project Storage. <br />See RRA Reporting (Continued on page 3) <br />