My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Search
DWR_3539567
DWR
>
Division Filing
>
2019
>
12
>
DWR_3539567
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/9/2019 1:18:21 PM
Creation date
12/9/2019 1:12:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Division Filing
Document Date
3/6/2019
Document Type - Division Filing
Correspondence
Division
2
WDID
1707701
Subject
PILOT PROJECT - COLORADO SPRINGS UTILITIES SUPER DITCH HB1248 CWCB BOARD MEMO
DWR Send/Recipient
ALEXANDER FUNK, AGRICULTURAL WATER RESOURCES SPECIALIST
Outside Send/Recipient
CWCB BOARD MEMBERS
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
45
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Download electronic document
View images
View plain text
// 2 <br />December 13, 2018 <br /> <br /> <br />any period in which the Flow Management Program is operated to require Pueblo West to <br />forego diversions and other parties have agreed to not exercise the exchange to Pueblo <br />Reservoir decreed in Case No. 2009CW103. <br /> <br />The proposal states, as though it were a fact, “Super Ditch ...formed in 2008 for the benefit <br />of the farmers in the Lower Arkansas Valley...” This may have been the stated <br />purpose. However, no evidence is presented that it benefits or will benefit farmers who do <br />not lease water to Super Ditch. In addition, it’s our understanding that farmers who do <br />lease water to Super Ditch only get paid for transferable HCU that actually is usable by the <br />purchasing municipalities, and so they take the risk that their lease income may be <br />substantially less than if they had farmed instead of fallowed. Thus, the leasing farmers <br />might or might not benefit. This is mentioned because this pilot program request should <br />be evaluated on the basis of prevention of injury to other water rights, not on a claim of <br />benefits to society in general. <br /> <br />There are concerns about operation of this type of source as source water for an exchange <br />due to questions as to amount and timing of its availability as related to the required <br />analysis of transferable HCU, return flows, sub-irrigation or dry-up verification, all <br />required to be analyzed as part of the pilot program (This was not addressed in 2010CW004 <br />because that was purely an exchange priority case that did not attempt to qualify source <br />water for an exchange.) <br /> <br />Applicants indicated that they recognize that the exchange potential, requested in Case No. <br />2010CW004, on the Arkansas River does pose a hydrological challenge to operation of the <br />CS-U Pilot Project under certain conditions. In addition, they say that this proposal has <br />been designed to include various mechanisms to allow for operation in times of limited <br />exchange potential such as the use of stepped exchanges to intermediate storage locations, <br />use of recharge facilities, and trades of water. They also state because the Catlin Canal <br />augmentation stations (located on Timpas Creek and Crooked Arroyo) and the point of <br />delivery of recharge to the Arkansas River from the Schweizer and Hanagan recharge <br />ponds are located downstream of several of the locations of historical return flows, this <br />proposal indicates several other possible additional recharge locations, retiming of <br />recharge, and use of upstream storage in order to ensure the ability of the pilot project to
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.