Headwaters Summer 2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

tion plans are long -term and must be approved by a water court. If an extended drought had occurred sooner, the substitute supply plans' shortcomings might have been exposed earlier. Simpson warned well users in the 1990s that they needed long -term plans. But the storm clouds had already begun to gather. "The mismatch between the water laws and regulations and the goal of incorporating groundwater into the prior appropriation system became relatively clear very early on," wrote Edella Schlager in an e-mail interview in May. She's an associate professor in the University of Arizona's School of Public Administration and Policy. "Strictly enforcing the prior appropriation doctrine against wells by requiring decreed plans of augmentation will not work." Although some groups of wells users, such as the now- defunct Groundwater Appropriators of the South Platte, tried to find stop -gap solutions, they failed according to Schlager's research, because the "well problem is beyond the authority and ability of well associations or the state engineer." The storm began in December 2001, when the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in Empire Lodge Homeowners Association vs. Moyer, limiting the ability of the state engineer to approve short -term substitute water supply plans involving augmen- tation or changes of water rights. This meant well users, if they had not done so already, would have to apply for full - fledged augmentation plans. Then came the drought. By May 2002, it was beyond anyone's expecta- tions. Water lease prices skyrocketed to $600 per acre foot from $30, says Cech. Meanwhile, the cities kept grow- ing and searching for new water sup- plies at a rapacious pace. In 2003, the Colorado Supreme Court decided the state engineer lacked leg- islative permission to authorize annual substitute supply plans allowing junior groundwater wells to pump out -of prior- ity, if the well owners had not filed for court - decreed augmentation plans. This decision applied specifically to tributary groundwater wells in the South Platte Basin, and not to groundwater depletions in the Arkansas Basin. This is because the General Assembly had already approved a set of rules govern- ing groundwater depletions in that area. In the same week as the Supreme Court's decision, Governor Bill Owens signed legislation authorizing the state engineer to approve temporary substi- tute supply plans for junior wells, if adequate replacement water could be found and supplied to the stream. This legislation gave South Platte well own- ers three years to file their augmentation plan applications in water court. "It was a perfect storm," says Cech. "Everything just lined up. If any one thing hadn't, we would have just gone on the way we had been." Some think it's been more of a slow downward spiral into water bankruptcy. The well users, Boulder's Ellinghouse says, "have taken water, knowing they were incurring an obligation, racking up the equivalent of credit card debt, know- ingly" accumulating a debt of water they owed the surface rights holders. "I've been working on this issue for more than a decade," she says. "It had been simmering for years. The 2003 (law) gave them amnesty. The well owners got three years to get their act together." Getting their act together for the major- ity of well users has been like "starting from scratch" says Skyler Loeffler, a Central board member and Weld County property owner. Groundwater subdistrict members had to purchase more water at escalating prices to keep their wells active. Cech concedes the turn of events wasn't unexpected. He says only some of the farmers will survive. "For a lot of (Central's) members it's like a death," he says. "There's shock, anger, frustration, grief. At some point, you have to move on and that's what's really hard. It is a death. It hurts." "It took a drought to show us what was going on, how important augmenta- tion plans are," says John Rusch, a former Central board member who now serves on NCWCD's board. A Morgan County farmer and resident, Rusch has wells and senior surface water rights, as well as friends on both sides of the issue. "We're building these plans now, during a drought." Schlager believes that diverting the current chain of events from its ongoing path would require revisions to the state constitution, and major legislation. "That means many people will have to be involved and a general consensus among citizens and public officials will have to develop," she writes. "That is not an easy effort to undertake and usually is not done unless a major crisis strikes." But Schlager is hopeful. "There are reasons to be optimistic 10 and 20 years out," she writes. "Colorado citizens, water users and elected officials have proven to be innovative problem solvers in the past and they will continue to be so. Colorado's constitution, water laws and water administration encour- age and allow for considerable local gov- ernance and the development of local solutions to local problems. "Long term solutions to the well crisis will require crafting different arrangements for different local water settings." ❑ Farmland near Fort Morgan lies fallow for want of irrigation water.