WSP02923 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

""'~ ' c.: Handsome returns can be expected from A WDI's water project, which Schaffer estimates will cost about $150 million. For instance, A WDI is seeking 30,000 acre-feet to transport to Colora- do's Front Range in its newly-proposed Phase One. That much water would be worth about $150 million a year in to- day's metro water market. Schaffer, who was president of the Denver Water Board before joining AWDI in 1988, reports that developed water in the Den- ver metropolitan area is currently selling for $4,000-$6,000 an acre-foot. If sales look good for A WDI's Phase One, imagine the returns if the compa- ny were ultimately to succeed in claim- ing all 200,000 acre-feet it is seeking for completion of its "sequential phases." Assume that half of that water goes to the Front Range: multiply 100,000 acre- feet by an average price of $5,000 per acre-foot and, bingo, you have annual 00 ,'-1 C:J \::;;; sales of a half a. billion dollars. A WDI's application has recently been amended to included phased-in develop- ment of the water, but ultimately the company is still seeking 200,000 acre- feet of groundwater-that's 65.2 billion gallons a year, enough for 200,000 fami lies of four. If A WDI wins a water right for its first phase during next year's tri- al, 30,000 acre-feet of water will be piped and sold to the Front Range. Another 30,000 would be used for new irrigation on now-dry portions of the Baca. Why are irrigators so upset? Here's an example. This summer, Jason Kirk- patrick, who irrigates 13 quarter- sections on land settled by his great- grandfather, has been denied permits for two supplemental wells that would allow him to make full use of a previous- ly decreed water right. He wants to con- vert some irrigated pasture into more ~ potato ground. He won't be able to do it unless he can get the well permits. He believes he has grounds to fight the state engineer's office on the denials of his supplemental wells, and he plans to. But, Kirkpatrick's case is a symptom of how tough it has gotten to get any water at aII in the San Luis ValIey. In contrast to Kirkpatrick's situation, if A WDI can get court approval for the first phase of its project, it would put in 35 new welIs into the confined aquifer. About half of them would be at Villa Grove and the other half on the Baca. If it ultimately gets all 200,000 acre-feet, it would mean a total of I 12 welIs at the Baca, Villa Grove and Moffat. "I find it disheanenly ironic that a na- tive farmer has to fight to obtain sup- plemental water for an established water right, while A WDI is folIowing a path paved with money towards a goal of ob- .- "IT'S HOCUS POCUS"-DAVID ROBBINS Editor's Note: Excerpts follow from an interview with David Robbins, legal counselfor the joint objectors to A WD/'s water project. Q. What Is tbe single, most Import tbreat to San Luis Valley Irrigators from tbe American Water Develop- ment, Inc. water rigbts appUcation? A. The tbreat is about tbreefold. I) Once they get a pipeline into the Valley there is the risk that there will be continuing applications for water right and opportunities for additional water sales. That danger would mean Valley residents would constantly be in tlie position of having to fight to protect existing agriculture. 2) Another obvious threat is that the fragile hydro- logical balance in the Valley would be disrupted by the withdrawals of the quantities of water being claimed by AWDI. 3) Reduction or elimination of the artesian condition in all or pan of the Valley would cause flowing welIs to dry up. Hundreds of livestock and domestic welIs would have to install windmills or pumps in addition to damages to irrigators. . Q.1s a private company sucb as A WDI required to bave an environmental impact statement? A.No. Only federal agencies, which are involved in projects that appear to have environmental impacts, are required to me environmental impact statements (BIS). However, if AWDI requires any significant approvals from any federal agency, for instance, if its pipeline crosses a river and requires a 404 permit from the Corps of Engineers, or let's assume it goes through Forest Service land, then those federal agencies might be re- quired to file ail EIS. Q. Tbe State Water Engineer bas denied new water rigbts and weII permits for tbe confined aquifer since 1970. A WDl is applying for 200,000 acre-feet from tbat aquifer. Wbat makes tbem tbink tbey can get it? A. Tbe state engineer determined that issuing additonal permits was not appropriate because of the effect it was having on the Rio Grande, the damage to that river, and to the Conejos. In 1981, he also stopped issuing permits for the shallow, unconfined aquifer. The the state water engineer is an objector to the A WDI application and still believes that new wells will cause damage. However, if A WDI can show the water court that the water engineer was wrong, then they can claim water. But, if, in fact, the court rules that water is available, the issue is: what do you do about all of these other ap- plicants that were denied water rights tbrough the years? Q. Does A WDl's amended application in any way cbange tbe views of tbe opposition. A. A WDI didn't cbange its application. It is juS! hocus- pocus. They still want 200,000 acre-feet, nothing has really cbanged, their phased proposal is just a way of trying to get people confused. They haven't given up any claims; they are still claiming the right of appeal on the Spanish land grant claim. Tbe only thing that is different is that tbey're now saying that they may-may-have to provide some aug- mentation water for existing water rights that may be damaged. The interesting issue is: when they put their applica- tion into phases, with Phase One asking for 60,000 acre- feet, tbey located those 35 first phase wells at the dis- tant north locations they could. They slid everything as far from the Closed Basin Project and the irrigation as possible. That could help them get the next 140,000 acre, feet from tbe south part of the Baea, where it will tear the pants off the irrigators. ContInued on page 20 10 Colorado Rancher & Farmer