Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHandout - Fact Sheet on Suth Platte River Wells December 13, 2006/ I~~ ^ \\~\F~i ,~ O \OF eOJ Fact Sheet on Soutfi Platte River Wells ~. ~~ Decemtrer~~3, 2006 -- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • The Well Augmentation-Subdistrict of Central Colorado Water Conservancy District (Centr~l WA5) is under a' courf-ordered shutdowrn of its members' wells (about 440 wells} due to its failure~to obtain court approvat of. a. water~augioentation plan. ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ • Central WAS wells have water rights that are junior to many of the other water rights in the South Platte River basin'. Juniorwater ilght owners are not legally allc7wed Eo take ivater if it would deprive a more senior wate~ right of water. ". „ , . . •Water augmentation plans allow junior water right owners to take water at times when they otherwise woufd not be allowed to diveFt because it would take water away $om senior water right ow~'ers. Under an augmentation plan, the junior water user commits to give replacement water to senior waCer use~s td substitute ior the water taken by the junlor usec Water augmentation plans must be approved by the Water Court. •The time delay between use of a welf and the resulting redocfiorts in river flow that must be replaced can range from days to years depending on distance of the well from Ehe river. •In 2006, the South Platte River had a shortage of about "15,000 acre-feet of water due to the delayed effect of' Central WAS wells Fiaving'puinped water in previous years under augmentaGon plans approved by,the 5tate _ Engineer. The State Enginee~ can no longer approve augmentation plans due to a ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court. •Cenfral WAS had committed to offset any reduction in water available to senior water rights owners when the delayed effect of previous well use reached the river. However, Central WAS did not have enough water available to them to pay the part of the water debt that came due in 2006. ., •Two groups of wafer users that hvld Seriior water rights to Central WAS wells are impacked.by Gentral's failure to pay back the water it owes: Thousands of downstream farmers in northeastern Colorado from Beighton to Fort Morgan and beyond, and other lower South Platte River water users like the city of Sterling; Upstream users like Boulder, Centennial (Highlands Ranch) and others who have.to send water downstream to accammodate calls for water from senioF wafer rights owners: ° - ~ •Boulder haswater rights senior to Central WAS, but not to some of the agricultural surface water users downstream from Central WAS wells. ' •W hen well users do not replace the water they removed fiom the river (augment), there is lesswater to meet downstream needs, If downstream surface water users hold senior rights and do'n't receive enough water, they can place a"Call" against the river and force upstream'Junior water rights ownersto-send waterdownsVeam.' ., Once the cells reach the highest diverter upstream, the call cannot be transferred any further - no matter the seniority of the right. Since Boulder's diversion points are nearlhe Continental Divide,'it receives the "last' domino" effect and bears much.of the brunt of replacing the water for the unaugme~ted well use. •Water 4hat Boulder should be legally entitled to keep must be passed along to the more senior water rights owners downs(ream from'Central WAS even though Central WAS is responsibie for replacing this water in the rrver. In effeCt, Boulder's water has been, and continues to be, used to pay the water debt of the Central WAS well owners •The 15,000 acre-feet shar~age in the river created a burden on senior surface water users in 2006. If available, it would have been enough to irrigate up to 7,500 acres of'crops or to serve the annual water needs of ab'out 40,000 homes. Farmers downstrearri of the Central WAS wells lost about 5,000 acres'of c~ops in 2006 because their water was previously taken by Central WAS wells'a~d not paid back. •In prior years, Boulder lost thousands of acre-feet of the city's water because of the lack of proper well augmentalion on the South Platte River. In 2006, Boulder had to release 4,000 acre feet of water to meet Paga 1 downstream calls. Loss of th~s reservoir water increases Boulder's nsk of severe water shortages during drought years. in non-drougF,! years, use of this water could be leased annually to Boulder Creek basin farmers for approximafely $25 per acre foot. Thig represents a$100,OQ0 loss to the city in any ye8r that 4,000 acre-feet of water is given up. ff Boulder had to acquire new water rights to permanently replace 4,000 acre-feet of water losf to Ehe welis annually (to assure the city would have enough water during droughts), this would cosi about _- $48 million: •On May 8, 2006, the state Water Gourtjodge ordered the Central VUAS wells tumed off based on a,motion filed by Central WAS to postpone a triai on its water,augmentation plan from May 2006 until February 2007. The Water Court granted the postponement o~ the condition that the wells would be shut down in 2006. Centra~ WASagre~d not to use the wells until a permanenE plan was, app~oved. •There are 36 objectors in the Central WAS water court case, 20 of whom are agricultural inlerests like ditch companies. Many of the objectors in the Water CouR case, inCluding Boulder, offered a compromise to avoid triaf and urged Central WAS to use the same terms of a water use plan agreed to by a similar well user district, lhe Groundwater Management Sutdistrict (GMS), whichis also-within Centra~'s district boundary. This type of plan was not accepted by Central WAS. ' •An e~gineering analysis of the original augmentation plan submitted by Central WAS found that it would result in more than 36,000 acre-feet of deficits over the oext six years if the wells were used in 2006 (even if not used after 2006).', This amount of water eould meet all of Bouldei s municipal water ~eeds for one and a half years, ~The decision to allow Central WAS to use its wells is not a city of Boulder decision. The state Water Court will evaluate the merits of the Centra4 WAS proposal fpr a permanent augmentation plan in February 2007. Investigation of Illegal Pumping: •In June 20Q6, other agricultural water users in the area of the wells reported thaf some of the Central WAS wells were still being operated despite the court-ordered shutdown. An agricultural surface water user group hired a private investigator to assess the sit~ation: The city did not iniliate this investigation and did not hire the private investigator. •The private investigator's assessment found that there appear~d to be wells operating in violation of the court order. This information was shared with the objectors to the Central WAS court case, including Boulder. •Following this investigation, several of the objectors, including Boulder, hired an expert witness to help with the upcoming February court case. This expert witness is not a private investigator, but an enginaeri~g professional specializing in the water rights field who will provide testimony on the status of the wells in Water Gourt. It is common practice for tMe ciry to hire expert professional witnesses in water rights cases. These experts roake field visits to review and verify informatio~ in adyance of their testimony in a case. •The expert's costs were shared among several of the objectors and totaled $5,800. Boulder's share is approximately $1,000. •The expert witness' initial report was submitted to the State Engineer, the State Deputy Attomey Generai and the Legislative Water CommitEee and has been publicly available since July 2006. Fot more information, visit the city of Boulder Web sile at www.boulderwlorado.qov. Page 2 City of Boulder Key Messages on South Plafte River Wells 1) Wells in the S. Plattr Basin must have augmentation plans. Augmentation plans allow well users with junior water tights to taF =~.vater destined for more senior water rights owners by replacing the water with other supplies. About 88 percant of the thousands of welis in the South Platte basin have-complied witF~ legal requirements and either have or are on treck to receive Water Court decrees for augmentation plans. The Central Colorado V'. ater Conservancy District ppstponed Water Court proceedings scheduled for May 2006 for the 440 weAs indudEd in Central's Well Augmeniation Subdistrict (Central WAS) and the Water Court ordered these wells to t ~ shut down. 2) Many farmers support Boulder's position. The city of Boulder is one of 36 objectots in the Water Court case that was initiated t i a Centraf WAS application for an augmentation plan. The Ce~tral WAS proposed plan would not ful~y replace t~e water taken from senior water right's. The objectors in the case include farmers and cities with'senior water rghts thal would be harmed by tfie Central WAS plan. Some objectors are affected more than others wifh Boulder being one of the communities most impacted. All water right owners, be they local govemment's or farmers stand to lose if Colorado's long standing system of water administration based on seniority of water rights s undermined by allowing a small group of well owners to avoid their responsibility for replacing out-of-priority :roersions. Farmers and cities that have invested in expensive senior water rights would no longer be assured ;of .vater during dry periods. 3) Boulder tried to, negotiate a solution. Several of the objectors in the Central WAS case joined together to offer options for settling :he issues in a way that would allow Central WAS wells to operate without depriving senior water rights of their water. Central WAS was offered a settlement based on the augmentation plan terms fhaE Certtral accepted fo: CentraPs other well augmentation subdistrict, the Groundwater Management Subdistrict (GMS), The GMS has received a Water CouR deCree and its wells are operating. If senior water users do not convince tf ~ Water Court to issue a decree for Central WAS that fully,protects their water rights, il would be the same as g iirg away the water they rely on for their farms and cities to Central WAS without any compensation for their ir~estment in the senior water rights. 4j Boulder is being eminently reasonable. It is reasonable fo~ the city of Boulder to protect its existing water rights and water resourc~s to maintain the city's expected water.yield to avoid having to buy water rights from farmers in. the future. In ~nor years, Boulder has lost thousands of acre-feet of the citys water because of the lack of proper well augmentation on the South Platte River. Loss of this reservoir water increases Boulder's risk of severe water shortagE during drought years. In non-drought years, use of this water could be leased annually to Boulder Creek basin farms#or approximately $25 per acre foot. This represents a$100,000 loss to the city in a year, such as was the case in 2006, when 4,,Q00 acre-feet of water is given up. If ~he Central WAS wells continue to operate without proper augmentation; BouldeF could need to permanently replace the water rights for A,000 aere-feet of mcnicipal water which could cost $48,000,000 or more. 5) Boulder is a leader in water conservation. Since the 2002 drought, Boulder has reduced water use by more than len.percent e~. en without restrictfons in place. Boulder's water use is efficient with about 35 percent used for outdoor purposes as compared to more than 50 percent for many other cities. The city's new water budget billing system wiL enable the Boufder community to create even more water use efficiencies. . 6) This is not an issue of farmers vs. cities. The Central WAS wells issue is not about cities vs. farmers. This issue is about propeely administering senior and junior water rights based on their priority and on the law. The city of Boulder is helping those farmers who comply with the law which includes senior surface water right owners and the users of S. Platte wells that have augmentation plans. Many of these farmers have written and called the city to express their appreciation for Boulder's support. Those farmers who are in compliance are relying on the water admmistration system being upheld to avoid a competitive disadvantage for following the law. Exemptions to the Colorado water administration system for a small select group of well owners when aIl others must follow the requirements undermine the abifities of both farmers and cities to protect this precious resource and to adequat~ly plan for future water supplies. It is also impoRant to note fhat Bpulder demonstrates iPs commitment to the fa~ming community by leasing thousands of acre-feet of surplus water to farmers in ~on- droughtyears Page J ...b., . .., .. Monday, January 22, 2007 , ~ ~~ ~ ~ Thie pr~lr~ Edf~n at the Cobrado deily News Opinion Sports The Mix Resources Advertising Classifieds E~Rras '*NEW** Search: ~-~ Go Click Newspaper above for a pnntable PDF version of our local news section. ews W & Boulder Beyond Boulder Ooinion Our Take YourTake Letters SPorts Local The Record Bufizone.com Biz & Tech e 'x Body & Soul Calendar Club Notes Food & Drink LocalScene Movies Music People in the News Spin This Video Games Homes & Rentals Jobs Resources Classifieds Click the cover below tor our feature publication C U & Boulder City heading to water court By RICHARD VALENi'Y Colorado Daily Staff Writer Sunday, January 21, 2007 9:56 PM MST About Us ~ Contact Us Biz & Tech What's Happening For Advanced Search Click Here The phrase "Whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting pver," attributed to Mark Twain, is back in the news because the City of 6oulder is headed to Water Court. Boulder got some water-related press that city officials weren't happy with during the early summer of 2006, when it was reported that certain farmers in northeastern Colorado were in danger of losing crops and money due to lack of water. The State of CDlorado Division One Water Court ordered a shutdown of about 440 wells used by members of the Well Augmentation Subdistrict (WAS) of the Central Colorado Water Conservancy District (CCWCD) in May 2006. The court has jurisdiction over the South Platte River basin, and the coming court case wiil determine if the Central WAS has prepared an adequate water augmentation plan. In augmentation plans, well users are required to demonstrate that they can adequately replace water thai they pump - water that might otherwise flow to downstream users. Boulder has water rights senior to the Central WAS users but junior to certain other South Platte users, and the city currently objects to its having been required to release water to make up for Central WAS use and satisfy senioe rights - and that it might need to do so again in coming years. Also, it was reported in 2006 that a private investigator found that certain Central WAS users continued to pump despite the court order. A City of Boulder document said that the city contributed funding but did not initiate the investigation or hire lhe investigator. Certain 2006 editorials framed the issue as cities, including Boulder, protecting the green lawns of city residents while food-producing farmers suffered, but Boulder's City Manager Frank Bruno said Friday that he believes the framing wasn't fair. "We had farmers in Sterling who were quite pleased that we were involved;' said Bruno. "Which farmers do we support?" The answer to Bruno's question can be found in a list of roughly 35 entities - including Front Range cities and Eastern Plains irrigation companies - that will join Boulder in Water Court over perhaps the next several months, beginning Feb. 5, 2007. But CCWCD executive director Tom Cech (not the CU professor with the same name who won a Nobel Prize) said Friday that CCWCD believes its water supplies are sufficient to gain some legal approval to pump. Boulder Weather ~K LdSE... More Weather... Marke#Piate http://coloradodaily.com/articles/2007/O1/21/newslc_u_and_boulder/news3.txt 1/22/2007 Shopping & Ads Ciassifieds Automobiles Homes & Rentals Jobs & Careers Click the cover above for our feature publicaiion Online Poll .~.,..,. u..,, ~ .., .,, .. ~ 0 "Our plan for February 5 is to obtain a Water Court decree for 215 Ads bv Gooale (not all 440) wells and very limited pumping;' said Cech. Movina to He said the Central WAS~has acquired certain South Platte water Boulder, CO? rights and found severa~ other ways to manage water supplies. Sea~ch Homes For Sale. Free No "We've developed a groundwater recharge project, where you put Hassle MLS water into a pit, a pond or a creek basin, and you let it infiltrate Search. Get underground and replenish groundwater aquifers;' said Cech. "We Started! have water leases with various cities across the Front Range, and RealEState.coMColorado we've borrowed $11 million from the Colorado Water Conservation Board to make some of our purchases. We've been aggressively pursuing water acquisition opportunities" gQulde Job But Boulder officials say the lack of adequate Central WAS Looking For A New augmentation led to a situation where the city has been forced to ~ob? Use Our Free release thousands of acre-feet (an acre•foot is about 325,000 Listings & gallons) of reservoir water. Resources. Start Now! Data from the City of Boulder says that giving up water to "pay the w~.Beyona.com water debt of the Central WAS" could jeopardize the adequacy of the citys water supplies during a drought year - and the early part of 2006 was ominously similar to the serious drought year of 2002. gaulder Real The city claims that it could lease available reservoir water to Estate farmers in the Boulder Creek basin for $25 per acre-foot, and the Access Boulder 4,000 acre-feet it released to South Platte users in 2006 would be real estate MLS worth $100,000. Also, the ciry says that acquiring new permanent listings. Auto water rights to replace 4,000 acre-feet annually could cost "about emails. Photos. $48 million" Free www.cohomefintler.com And city officials at a Friday meeting emphasized that Central WAS water use impacts South Platte users downstream from the WAS wells as well. For example, city information said downstream farmers lost 5,000 acres of crops in 2006 because of the WAS using B~I~i~~~eal water without repayment. estate Instantly view all Cech, on ihe other hand, said an unfavorable court ruling would be Boulder Colorado "devastating" for farmers dependeni on WAS wells, and the farmers' real estate for sale. woes would spread to businesses serving farmeis, such as fertilizer Boulder, CO dealers, and potentially to the economies of certain cities. www.automacedHOmeF~n The Boulder officials said Friday that other South Platte entities have done a better job in acquiring and paying for adequate water rights Advertise on this site than the Central WAS, and City Ariomey Ariel Ca~onne said Boulder's "preferred outcome" in ths court case is to obtain recognition from the Water Court that the WAS augmentation plan is not adequate. But Calonne also said that water rights disputes tend to be "adversari al" without considering the broader social or economic impacis of water arrangements, and said Colorado's ~egislative process could have some impact on the broader picture. There are already at least two water-related bills on the state's 2007 docket that could impact Boulder - House Bill 1124, sponsored by Rep. Mary Hodge, D -Brighton, and Senate Bill 13, sponsored by Sen. Josh Penry, R-Grand Junction, and Rep. Jack Pommer, D- Boulder. The city officials at Friday's meeting generally agreed that ihey expect more bilis to come up in 2007, and Bruno said the bills will factor into a'Yotality of the system" that determines statewide water disiribution. Contact Rrohard Valenty in regard to this story at (303) 443-6272 e~. 126, or at valenty (~ coloradodaily.com. Print this story ~ Email this story ~ Return to News . ..b., ~. .., ., ~r~ ~:~:I' ~: - ~waaer , Ch~rtablw ~ ~R ( a.~a~w ~f~+ _..__ ,. http://coloradodailv.com/articles/2007/O1/21/news/c u and boulder/news3.txt 1/22J2007