Laserfiche WebLink
MOSES, WITTEMYER, HARRISON AND WOODRUFF, P.C. <br /> <br /> <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board <br />December 14, 2018 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br /> <br />00187068-1 <br />(“FLCC”) or Rocky Ford High Line Canal Company (“Rocky Ford”) shareholders whose water <br />rights are to be used in the pilot project. Instead, the Proposal’s Table 1 simply lists all of each <br />company’s outstanding shares and identifies the owners of those shares as “c/o the [canal <br />company’s] Board of Directors.” With respect to the Catlin Canal Company (“Catlin”), Table 1 <br />indicates that 6,461.877 of Catlin’s 18,660 outstanding shares will participate in the proposed pilot <br />project and identifies the participating shares’ owners but not their certificate numbers.1 <br />As the owner of 6,080 shares in the FLCC, LAWMA is particularly concerned with the <br />Applicants’ failure to meet this minimum requirement of the Criteria and Guidelines. LAWMA <br />is likewise concerned with the Proposal’s plain misrepresentation of the FLCC “letter of intent” <br />attached to the Proposal as Exhibit D. The Applicants write that “[p]ursuant to [that] letter of <br />intent signed by the Fort Lyon board, Fort Lyon will provide up to 5,000 acre-feet of water for <br />lease to CS-U during the 10-year term of the CS-U Pilot Project,” and that “Fort Lyon will present <br />a contract between Fort Lyon and Super Ditch for shareholder approval at the shareholder meeting <br />in December.” Both statements are false. The letter attached to the Proposal at Exhibit D describes <br />the FLCC Board’s support for the concept of the proposed pilot project, and confirms that the <br />FLCC annual meeting on December 17, 2018, the Board will recommend to FLCC shareholders <br />that the Board create a committee to study that concept. The FLCC letter does not —because the <br />FLCC Board has no authority to—commit any amount of FLCC shareholders’ water to the pilot <br />project, much less 5,000 acre-feet of water per year. The FLCC letter likewise does not indicate <br />that the shareholders will be voting on a “contract between Fort Lyon and Super Ditch” at the <br />annual meeting on December 17, and no such shareholder consideration of a contract is on the <br />agenda for that annual meeting. <br />Without identification of ownership of the specific water rights to be included in a pilot <br />project, CWCB, the State Engineer, and interested parties cannot determine whether a proposal <br />complies with relevant statutes and the Criteria and Guidelines. As just one example, unless an <br />applicant identifies by certificate number the mutual ditch company shares to be included in a pilot <br />project, it is impossible for CWCB to confirm that those shares are not included in another pilot <br />project, as required by section 37-60-115(8), C.R.S. Further, and most significantly for LAWMA, <br />mutual ditch company shareholders must be able to confirm that participating shares have obtained <br />all required ditch company approvals—with attendant protective terms and conditions—before the <br />share water may be included in an application for a temporary change of use in a pilot project. <br /> <br />1 By contrast, Super Ditch’s and Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District’s proposal for their existing pilot <br />project using Catlin water (“Catlin Pilot Project’) complied with the Criteria and Guidelines by identifying the owners <br />and share certificate numbers of the specific Catlin shares to be included in the project. Catlin Pilot Project proposal, <br />Table 1.