Laserfiche WebLink
PROPOSED RULES <br /> • ARKANSAS RIVER WATER BANK PILOT PROGRAM <br /> DRAFT CWCB COMMENTS <br /> January 2002 <br /> OVERVIEW: <br /> The proposed rules relate to "stored water" only. No direct flow water rights or <br /> groundwater are eligible. The rules apply basin wide and are effective through June 30, <br /> 2007. <br /> COMMENTS: <br /> 1. Rule 3.A.5 - It is not clear how "Interruptible Supply" relates to the requirement of <br /> doing things in accord with Colorado Water Law which would dictate that a change <br /> application would be required if water was banked on a regular basis. Therefore, <br /> seems like some additional language would be required to assure the bank actions are <br /> temporary and undertaken on a periodic basis. If done on a regular basis, a change <br /> application may be necessary. <br /> 2. Rule 3.A.9 - Same comment as number 1. <br /> 3. Rule 4.K- If the Water Bank operates on a year-to-year basis, what happens to water <br /> that is banked but goes unused? Does it revert back to the original owner and become <br /> carryover storage, or does something else happen? This should be clear in the rules. <br /> 4. Rule 4 - Can federal reservoirs participate in the water bank? How does this square <br /> with federally authorized project purposes? It seems like if federal reservoirs do <br /> • participate that additional limitations may be required in order to remain within <br /> authorized project purposes. Also, probably should ask federal agencies that are <br /> trying and or hoping to market water from a project if the water bank creates potential <br /> conflicts that are difficult to resolve. <br /> 5. Rule 7 - Should the water bank attempt to establish a price for water placed into or <br /> released from the bank? Should prices be set basin by basin? How do you encourage <br /> use of the bank in conjunction with the free water market? <br /> 6. Do the rules require a section on who is authorized to run the water bank? Hal <br /> indicated that he was working with the Southeastern Water Conservancy District to <br /> manage the pilot bank. This is okay for the pilot, but the reporting requirements <br /> should include recommendations on how to implement the water bank statewide <br /> should it prove to be successful. If successful, it seems that one administrator would <br /> be desirable to assure some consistency in rules, regulations and administration. <br /> Perhaps one of the recommendations would be to review how water banks have been <br /> established in other states, such as the Arizona Water Bank for example. <br /> • <br />