Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Q: What legal framework exists that would support interruptible <br />supplies and the resulting change in use with interrupted return flows <br />other than injurious impacts? <br /> <br />A: If you were to interrupt the diversion by a ditch company and <br />allow that water to be taken by a city elsewhere for one year or two <br />years out of 20, it is no different in some respects than simply <br />drying up that land. There would be an interruption in the return <br />flow regime associated with that agricultural land. And it would have <br />to be dealt with in a water rights change case. I suspect the <br />problematical difficulty of that interruption of return flow would be <br />less severe and more easily accommodated if you were doing it on an <br />interruptible basis that was less frequent. The City of Boulder, one <br />of our clients, has been exploring the interruptible supply concept <br />with a couple of ditch companies in the Boulder Creek basin. That is <br />one issue that has come up. It does not appear to be an <br />insurmountable one. Legally, it would have to be addressed in the <br />same context as the water rights change that would allow you to take <br />that water permanently off the land. <br /> <br />Q: To what degree does your study define policies of others such as <br />adjacent states, federal -- both Bureau of Reclamation and Bureau of <br />Land Management -- or compact entitlements? <br /> <br />A: We did not look at other states or the federal government with <br />respect to policies except in our assessment of where water supply <br />planning has been and where it is going in Colorado, in which we <br />acknowledged there seem to be certain directions where the federal is <br />going in its permitting. Those directions are strongly aimed at <br />minimizing environmental impact, forcing or trying to encourage states <br />to use other available alternatives that have less environmental <br />impact. But we did not categorize them in our study. That would be a <br />very valuable addition to any sort of assessment like this. <br /> <br />Q: Use of nontributary Denver Basin aquifers as a dry-year source: <br />is this at odds with existing Senate Bill 5 legislation that has <br />already allowed for mining of this source which is not specific to <br />dry-year supply water? How would you suggest changing this <br />legislation since the barn door has already been left open to the <br />appropriation of this source. <br /> <br />A: Senate Bill 5 has allowed for appropriation of nontributary <br />groundwater. It does not necessarily address nor does it preclude the <br />use of that water as a dry-year supply except that it does have an <br />annual limitation for diversion equal to an estimated total capacity <br />in that aquifer. The way nontributary water might work as a dry-year <br />supply would be that you wouldn't pump more than a nominal, standby <br />amount, just enough to keep the well machinery working in 19 out of 20 <br />years, but maybe one out of 20 years you would have to pump it quite <br />intensively. There may need to be some modifications to the <br />legislation to allow for that flexibility. I think the result would <br />be you would have much less average depletion of groundwater if you <br />did it under a dry-year standby basis than if you used it under an <br />exclusive supply basis. <br /> <br />35 <br />