DWR_3539567 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Mitchell and Ms. Ris December 14, 2018 Page 4 of 9 identify their locations. In addition, the Proposal notes that additional structures may be incorporated into the project. Id. Tri-State understands that the proposal was prepared on a short time frame based on the execution of a contract between Super Ditch and CS-U in August 2018. It appears that efforts are underway to identify specific farms, water rights, and structures. For example, the Proposal indicates that contracts with individual Fort Lyon and Rocky Ford High Line sharehol ders are expected after each company’s annual shareholder meeting in December 2018. Proposal at 4. Tri-State requests that the CWCB require Applicants to identify specific Fort Lyon and Rocky Ford High Line lands (farms), water rights, structures and owners at the application stage and limit the lands, water rights, and included structures to those specifically identified and supported by contracts. Tri-State’s fundamental concern is that there is not sufficient time or resources to evaluate a change of use of the more than 100,000 irrigated acres included in these two ditch systems within the 60 day review and comment period provided by the Criteria. In addition, a change of use of the entire acreage identified in the Proposal would produce far more than the maximum 10,000 acre-feet of transferrable consumptive use per year. See Criteria § II.D. Such a change of water rights would be by far the largest in the history of the Arkansas Basin and would not be a “pilot project.” In addition to the fundamental concern that the CS-U Pilot Project should not include a change of the entire Rocky Ford High Line or Fort Lyon Canal systems, there are many details of the project where specific identification of farms, water rights and structures will avoid or eliminate issues. For example:  Maintenance of carriage water and ditch seepage will depend on the historical locations of irrigation water delivery in comparison to locations of augmentation stations and recharge projects. Other shareholders in the ditch systems will seek protection from increased ditch loss on their shares that may occur during the pilot project. Conversely, downstream water users will want to ensure that historical ditch seepage loss (which accrues to the Arkansas River and becomes part of their divertable supply) is maintained. The amount of ditch loss obligations will require identification of specific farms, augmentation stations, and recharge sites.  Some Fort Lyon farms are located east of the Horse Creek drainage. If they ar e fallowed and water is returned through a local augmentation station, then the depletion reach could exceed the lower boundary at the confluence of Horse Creek and the Arkansas River described at page 5 of the Proposal. Fallowing of Fort Lyon farms located east of John Martin Reservoir could present additional compliance issues with the Arkansas River Compact.