Laserfiche WebLink
Super Ditch/Colorado Springs Utilities Pilot Project Response and Modification <br />March 4, 2019 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />B. Stock Certificate Numbers <br />LAWMA comments that Applicants did not include the certificate numbers for the Catlin <br />shares to be included in the Super Ditch/CS-U Pilot Project. Applicants believe that the information <br />included in the Proposal was adequate to satisfy the Criteria and Guidelines at the proposal stage, i.e., to <br />identify “specific water rights…and ownership of them.” However, an updated table that includes <br />certificate numbers is attached hereto as Exhibit A. <br /> <br />C. Catlin Pilot Project Operations <br />Tri-State asserts that the Catlin Pilot Project was operated incorrectly and without advance <br />approval by the Division Engineer on several days in 2018. These specific concerns, however, are <br />beyond the purview of the Proposal. Additionally, CS-U is not part of the Catlin Pilot Project and has <br />no knowledge about its operation, so it would be inappropriate for the joint applicants here to respond <br />to this comment at the proposal selection stage. To avoid similar concerns with the Proposal in the <br />future, Super Ditch will enter proposed exchanges under the Pilot Project into the Arkansas River DSS <br />at the time of the request so that interested parties may review the requests. <br /> <br />D. Return Flows and Other Technical Analyses <br />Tri-State expresses concern that the Proposal does not provide sufficient information regarding <br />return flow replacements. At this stage, the Criteria and Guidelines require the Applicants to identify <br />only the source of water for replacing return flow obligations and how and where the replacement <br />water will be delivered. Detailed information including “technical analyses regarding…return flows” <br />will be submitted at the application stage, consistent with the Criteria and Guidelines. The Proposal <br />identifies the sources of water for replacing return flow obligations and options for how and where <br />replacement water will be delivered. Applicants will conduct thorough engineering studies during the <br />time period between selection and submitting a full application to determine the best of these options <br />for replacing return flows. These detailed technical analyses will be included, as required, in the full <br />application. Similarly, Pueblo West included comments related to sub-irrigation, return flow effects, <br />and accounting that will be addressed in the full application. <br /> <br />Tri-State also asserts that the proposal to trade credits with SWSPs violates section 37-60- <br />115(8)(d)(XI) of the pilot project statute. This statute states that land and water included in a pilot <br />project may not also be included in an SWSP or IWSA. Trading credits with an SWSP or other <br />administratively approved program is not equivalent to including the same water rights in both projects, <br />and thus is not prohibited by statute. Applicants will address this issue further in the future if they <br />determine that this option should remain in the full application.