C150117 Feasibility Study - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Proiect Description and Alternatives On December 17,2001, the Colorado Supreme Court issued a judgement in Case 00-SA-2II that changed the manner of operation of substitute supply plans in Colorado. The case centered on a dispute in the Arkansas Valley between an irrigator and an upstream homeowners association, called "Empire Lodge". In 1996 Empire Lodge filed suit in Water Court claiming that the downstream irrigators (the "Moyers"), had illegally expanded the use of their water right. The Moyers filed a counter-suit arguing that the Colorado State Engineer had allowed Empire Lodge to fill its upstream lake illegally under a substitute supply plan approved by the State Engineer. The case was ultimately heard by the Colorado Supreme Court, and at the end of last year, it ruled the State Engineer did not have the legal authority to approve substitute supply plans. The Court went on to say that a substitute supply plan (such as the one operated by the Subdistrict) would either have to file for a decree in Water Court, or follow new Rules & Regulations to be issued by the State Engineer. Either alternative would raise the standard required for approval. Ultimately, the Subdistrict will need to acquire more senior water rights to augment out-of- priority diversions. Ultimately, the Subdistrict will need to acquire approximately $20M in senior water rights to cover a 300-day period of call on the South Platte River. Central's current augmentation plan has 650 members. No new members have been accepted since 1997 unless they provide their own augmentation water. The Subdistrict Board of Directors has considered three alternatives: 1. No action. 2. Purchase water rights to cover a 300-day period of call. 3. Purchase water rights to cover a 365-day period of call. Alternative No.1: No Action. This is unacceptable because it will result in all of Central's current members (966 wells) being such off many years when augmentation water supplies are inadequate. It is estimated this could occur, on average, two or three years out often. The economic impact of the no action alternative would be devastating to local growers, communities, and the entire state. Alternative No.2: Purchase water rights to cover a 300-day period of call. This action was selected as it would result in existing member wells being shut off approximately two out of fifty years. It is estimated that $20M will be needed to purchase water rights for this scenario. Approximately 3,000 acre-feet of gravel pit storage and 6,500 acre-feet of senior water rights would be obtained. Alternative No.3: Purchase water rights to cover a 365-day period of call. This action was 6