•
•
Wright Water Engineers, Inc. DENVER OFFICE
2490 West 26th Ave., Suite 55A Denver, Colorado 80211 (303) 480-1700
TULSA OFFICE
707 South Houston, Suite 302 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74127 (918) 584-7136
November 25, 1986 Mr. Kevin B. Pratt
Fairfield 8z. Woods
1600 Colorado National Building 950 17th Street
Denver, CO 80202 Mr. C.L. Thomson General Manager
Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District
Box 440
Pueblo, CO 81002
Dear Mr. Pratt and Mr. Thomson:
GLEN WOOD SPRINGS OFFICE 818 Colorado Avenue
P.O. Box 219
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 (303) 945-7755
Denver Direct Line: 893-1608
The engineering report entitled "Winter Storage Program" is attached. This hydrologic assignment was undertaken in accordance with your request.
The Winter Storage Program decree would represent a major step towards needed water conservation and water management. The conditions and limit-ations to be incorporated into the decree, as explained in the report, will provide safeguards to the participants and will protect other decreed water rights in the Arkansas River basin from injury.
(1.8)
741-017.590 Attachment
Very truly yours,
WRIGHT WATER ENGINEERS, INC.
CfiaigMaines By
By I
Kenneth R. \trial) P.E.
• • s ▪ • . • I;jr , 1 1 t .. •
\TOlgT"F-,e%4:.• -,7, ,,C• ,1 ST yi 1///K'.t -
. ...
-.
..,
...
• z
L. . ...,
3034
ENGINEERING REPORT WINTER STORAGE PROGRAM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND OF THE WINTER STORAGE PROGRAM I-I
DESCRIPTION 1-5
PARTICIPANTS 1-11
SECTION II HYDROLOGICAL DATA
STUDY REACH INFLOW-OUTFLOW
PRE-1976 HISTORIC WINTER DIVERSIONS 1976-1984 OPERATIONS
WINTER MAINSTEM CALLS
i SECTION III PROPOSED CONDITIONS
GENERAL PROTECTION OF THE RIVER PROTECTION OF PARTICIPANTS
CONDITIONS FOR STIPULATING PARTIES CONDITIONS FOR UPSTREAM WATER USERS CONDITIONS FOR JOHN MARTIN RESERVOIR
SECTION IV CONCLUSIONS
BENEFITS IV-I
OPINION 1V-2
ARKANSAS RIVER STRAIGHT LINE DIAGRAM APPENDIX A THE PROPOSED DECREE
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
TABLE 11-1 MONTHLY AND ANNUAL DISCHARGE FOR
• ARKANSAS RIVER AT CANON CITY 11-2
TABLE I1-2 MONTHLY AND ANNUAL DISCHARGE FOR
ARKANSAS RIVER AT LAS ANIMAS 11-4
FIGURE 11-1 DOUBLE MASS DIAGRAM; ANNUAL
CANON CITY VS. LAS ANIMAS 11-5
FIGURE 11-2 DOUBLE MASS DIAGRAM; WINTER PERIOD
CANON CITY VS. LAS•ANIMAS 11-7
TABLE 11-3 NOVEMBER 16 THROUGH MARCH 15 DIVERSIONS BY ENTITIES IN WINTER
WATER STORAGE PROGRAM 11-9
TABLE 11-4 SUMMARY OF ANNUAL STORAGE AMOUNTS FOR PARTICIPANTS IN THE WINTER
STORAGE PROGRAM FOR THE WINTER SEASONS ENDING IN 1976-1984
•
SECTION I INTRODUCTION
The Winter Storage case was filed in the District Court, Water Division 2, on December 26, 1984, and assigned Case No. 84CWI79. This Wright Water Engineers report is to provide an engineering evaluation and technical • summary of the Pueblo Reservoir Winter Storage Program. This report out-lines the engineering basis for the terms and conditions of the winter storage proposed decree.
BACKGROUND OF THE WINTER STORAGE PROGRAM
Winter storage of direct flow irrigation water used during the non-growing months was first envisioned almost fifty years ago by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and local' irrigators during the earliest investigation of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project.
It was determined that when Pueblo Dam was constructed it should contain sufficient space for the storage of decreed waters during the non-growing months in the winter. Such space was provided.
The development of the Winter Storage Program required that unanimous agreement be reached among the owners of the agricultural decrees to permit the storage of such waters in accordance with state water law. Representa-tives from the District and each of the irrigation and canal companies began to hold meetings in 1969, and when Pueblo Dam was completed in 1975, unanimous agreement was reached to begin a "Voluntary Winter Storage Pro-gram." The Winter Storage Program held several attractions for the parti-cipants; direct-flow entities could store water for use at a time of year when use was more effective and labor problems of winter irrigation were avoided, and storage entities, which had seen feast or famine swings in their storage supplies, would receive a more reliable quantity for use.
1-2
•
The participants created a Board of Trustees consisting of one duly ap-pointed representative from each of the companies, with one alternate, and the General Manager of the District became the Chairman. The members of the Board held regular meetings throughout each year to evaluate the re-sults of the preceding Winter Storage Program, and to make adjustments to improve the program the following year. Those adjustments included in- • creasing the experimental time from three months to four months, and the adjustment of the percentage which was assigned to each of the participat-ing companies, and other adjustments of conditions durparticipat-ing the various years. The percentage distribution of the water among the participants changed yearly in the early programs. As experience was gained, the per-centages were vigorously negotiated until the present percentages were approved. The percentages, while based on reviews of historic diversion records, evolved into a rough compromise among the participants that re-flected not only diversions, but consumption, timing, need, interactions of diversions, historic administration and fairness. This "engineering by
I experience" and use of varying experimental programs led to the present
proposed decree. Each program each year operated on the exact water conditions in that year and there were no guarantees.
Unanimous agreement was reached and the voluntary program operated each year except 1977. The members of the Board of Trustees and the farmers they represented all agreed to the Winter Storage Program which permitted them to store a percentage of their historical supply in Pueblo Reservoir, and other off-channel reservoirs, and then use those stored waters. During extremely dry years it was found that the stored water made the difference between starting a crop, and not having that opportunity. In other years, farmers were able to retain Winter Stored water until the fall months, and on occasion until early the following year.
In 1984, the State Engineer recommended to the District and the Board of Trustees that the program had worked well under a voluntary procedure. and
S
•
1-3
suggested that the participants petition the Water Court for a permanent decree. On two occasions, U.S. Geological Survey studies have shown non-injury to Arkansas River water users by the Winter Sorage Program. Attorneys for the District and participating companies developed a proposed decree, and on December 26, 1984 a petition was filed in Water Court Divi-sion 2, with a majority of the participants signing the petition and several signing statements of opposition. A number of meetings were held in 1985 and 1986 between Attorneys for the entities, and many of the ob-jections were resolved.
During 1984, 1985, and 1986, the Board of Trustees met with the District, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Division Engineer regarding flood control capacity of Pueblo Reservoir. These meetings were necessitated by the series of wet years which resulted in a significant limitation on the volume of winter storage water •in the reservoir.
As a result of the interagency meetings, it was concluded that most of the 1982-83 water would be released along with all winter storage from 1983-84 and 1984-85 and with severe restrictions on the amount stored in Pueblo Reservoir in 1985-86. The released water contributed to John Martin Reservoir reaching a storage volume of 355,000 acre-feet in May 1985, which in turn resulted in spills from John Martin and filling of off-channel reservoirs.
The Winter Storage Program has evolved in a reliable and managed manner over a long period of time. The voluntary program between 1975 and 1986 has resulted in a simple but effective plan, which includes the following:
1. A representative Board of Trustees.
I
1-4
3. Winter storage only when all rights senior to March 1, 1910 have been satisfied.
4. Respecting the rights of nonparticipant winter diverters. 5. Keeping good records by the Division Engineer.
6. Allocation of 71.2 percent of the first 100,000 acre-feet stored to applicants owning off-channel storage rights, and 28.8 percent to applicants owning direct-flow rights.
7. Allocation of 2,750 acre-feet to Amity Ditch storage downstream.
8. Providing winter water to the Colorado Canal, Lake Henry, and Lake Meredith.
9. For winter storage in excess of 102,750 acre-feet, 75 percent is allocated to applicants with off-channel storage decrees and 25 percent to applicants with direct-flow rights.
10. Keeping Winter Storage Program water delivered to John Martin Reservoir separate from the Conservation Pool's entitlement to natural river flow.
11. Applicants' loss of released water when it cannot adequately be identified during low-flow conditions.
12. Assessment of proper evaporation losses in Pueblo Reservoir. 13. Use of accurate river transit losses.
14. Release of an applicant's winter storage water if not used by May 1 of the following calendar year: i.e.. no more than 13.5 months after the end of the storage period.
1-5
•
15. Consideration of all Arkansas River mainstem ditches which have historically diverted in the winter.
16. Protection of the futile call regime on tributaries to the Arkan-sas River.
DESCRIPTION
The Winter Storage Program is a major managed change in the regime of the Arkansas River which benefits many water users on the Arkansas River. It will result in water conservation and is a step forward in the goal of better water management. The conditions proposed for the Winter Storage Program and decree protect other water users from material injury.
The fundamental principle underlying the program is that the major water rights (participants) change the historical practices of diverting water , during the winter period. Instead, a portion of the decreed and historic-ally diverted water is stored upstream in Pueblo Reservoir rather than being applied to immediate use. In addition, participants with storage decrees store water under their own decrees in their own reservoirs accord-ing to a percentage division of river water. The stored water is appor-tioned among the participants' storage accounts and is available for re-lease and use when most beneficial.
The Winter Storage Program as described in the proposed decree for Case No. 84CW179 was developed by the participants in conjunction with federal and state water officials over a long period of time. During the 1975-86 period the program was operated, measurements taken. effects analyzed. and modifications made in a manner based on experience, consultations. and perceived impacts on water users and the river as a whole.
On the basis of that experience and evolutionary process. a set of rules were developed as set forth in the proposed decree. which are aimed at
•
1-6
better managing the waters of the Arkansas River for all water users with-out creating adverse impacts.
The Winter Storage Program will be operated under the direction of its Board of Trustees, composed of one representative of each applicant. The Board of Trustees will be chaired by the Manager of the Southeastern Colo-rado Water Conservancy District. The Division Engineer of Division 2 will be consulted for engineering advice. The Board will meet annually to make all decisions. The applicants propose the following:
1. River flows in excess of the amount necessary to supply senior priorities not participating may be stored in Pueblo Reservoir, John Martin Reservoir, and off-channel storage facilities of applicants, from November 15 to March 15. An applicant requiring water for direct diversion during the period November 15 to March 15 will have that water counted against its portion of the winter stored water. Storage of winter water in Pueblo Reservoir will be permitted by the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District if and when space is available.
••
•
2. The Rocky Ford Ditch has diverted directly from the Arkansas River free from the call of the river during the period November 15 to March 15. Rocky Ford will have the option to become a participant in the Winter Storage Program in the future. When and if Rocky Ford opts to participate in winter storage, it will participate
from that year forward.
o
og,t, '3. The river call by applicants during the period of storage will be March 1, 1910. A decree of a nonapplicant which diverts from the Arkansas River, or tributaries of the Akansas River, including the St. Charles River, Fountain Creek, and Beaver Creek, and their tributaries, which decree is senior to this river call, will be free to divert to beneficial use during the period of storage to the extent it is not called out by a more senior decree.
•
,
1-7
4. The Division Engineer will keep a record of all water stored or diverted. This record will be filed with the Court, Division Engineer, Arkansas River Compact Administration, and each appli-cant.
5. The first 100,000 acre-feet of winter-stored water stored by 'par-ticipating applicants may be stored in amounts according to the following percentages, with 71.2 percent to applicants which own their own off-channel storage rights and 28.8 percent to appli-cants which own direct flow rights.
Division of Participating Direct Flow Applicants' 28.8% Share of First 100,000 Acre-Feet Division of First 100,000 Acre-Feet Bessemer 21.50% 6,190 High Line 28.87 8,310 Oxford 6.96 2,000 Catlin 31.72 9,140 Consolidated 9.57 2,710 Riverside-West Pueblo 1.38 400 100 28,800
• Division of Participating Off-Channel Applicants' 71.2% Share of First 100,000 Acre-Feet
Division of First 100,000 Acre-Feet Colorado. Lake Henry,
Lake Meredith 15.01% 10,690
Holbrook 11.97 8.520
Fort Lyon 53.60 38,160
Amity 19.42 13,830
100 71,200
6. The next 2,750 acre-feet of winter stored water above 100.000 acre-feet may be stored by Amity, in the Great Plains System or John Martin Reservoir.
•
1-8
7. A quantity of water will be delivered to Colorado Canal, Lake Henry, and Lake Meredith as described in a Stipulation among Applicants and the City of Colorado Springs.
8. Amounts of winter stored water above 102,750 acre-feet may be stored in amounts according to the following percentages, with 75 percent to applicants with their own off-channel storage decrees and 25 percent to applicants holding direct flow decrees.
Division of Participating Direct Flow Applicants' 25% Share of Water Over 102,750 Acre-Feet
Bessemer. 21.50% High Line 28.87 Oxford 6.96 Catlin 31.72 Consolidated 9.57 Riverside-West Pueblo 1.38 100 Division of Participating Off-Channel Applicants' 75% Share of Water Over 102,750 Acre-Feet
Division of Water Over 102,750 .Acre-Feet 5.3750% 7.2175 1.7400 7.9300 2.3925 0.3450 25.0000
Colorado. Lake Henry,
Lake Meredith 17.07% 12.8025
Holbrook 14.05 10.5375
Fort Lyon 50.88 38.1600
Amity 18.00 13.5000
. 100 75.0000
9. If in the opinion of the Division Engineer . the winter inflow quantity to the John Martin Reservoir Conservation Pool in the winter period significantly departs from the 1950-1975 winter inflow quantity, he will advise the winter storage chairman. who
1,, [;5 4 Vi/4-. I-9
fiv6--
)))-shall convene the Board of Trustees to make findings as to the cause of such departure from historic patterns. In no event will water identified as added to the John Martin Reservoir inflows by the winter storage program be construed as natural flow to which the John Martin Reservoir Conservation Pool might be entitled.
10. The transportation loss and transit time charged to each applicant for winter stored water shall be based on figures approved by the
Division Engineer.
11. During low flow at any time during the year, it may be necessary for the Division Engineer to notify the entity making a winter water release that he may not be able to identify the reservoir run and little or .no credit may be given for the release.
12. The Division Engineer shall assess an evaporation charge to each • storing account.
13. Winter water will be delivered to the Amity Canal Company account in John Martin Reservoir with the transit loss between the Las Animas Gage and John Martin to be based upon the "USGS Study." All participating entities except Fort Lyon will stand that loss on a pro rata basis. Any winter water delivered in an account in John Martin Reservoir will be charged a transit loss based upon
the "USGS Study." 3wig
14. No applicant waives any of its rights to or interests in water rights and priorities thereto, except as provided in this decree. The future participation of each applicant in this Winter Storage Program will constitute the exercise of the decreed rights of each during the winter storage period.
1-10
15. Applicants further propose that approval of the change be subject to reconsideration by the Court on the question of injury to the vested rights of others for 35 years.
16. Applicants claim a priority for exchange and substitution based on the intent formed during the 1950's.
17. Winter water stored in Pueblo and not used by May 1 of the calen-dar year following the calencalen-dar year in which the winter storage period ends will be promptly released from Pueblo Reservoir to the system under the direction of the Divison Engineer, and applicants understand that any charges paid to Southeastern for storage will be forfeited.
18. Some of the applicants here and various District 67 ditches have agreed and will agree with respect to operation of John Martin Reservoir. This report does not in any way propose management of John Martin Reservoir or the Conservation Pool or individual accounts therein by the Board of Trustees.
19. Applicants Colorado Canal, Lae Henry, and Lake Meredith have agreed to a division of water among themselves as follows: Lake Henry one-third of the water to which these three entities are entitled under this winter . program, but not to exceed 6,355 acre-feet in storage, and Lake Meredith two-thirds of the water to which these three entities are entitled.
20. This application includes all ditches (except the Otero and Rocky Ford) on the main stem of the Arkansas River between Pueblo Reservoir and John Martin Reservoir which have historically diverted for beneficial use or storage during the winter period.
21. Under this proposed change. exchange and substitution no changes of use or location of use are requested. Each applicant will
•
retain its own decreed purpose or use and must use its water pursuant to its own decreed purpose or use.
22. Because of the Colorado Springs exchange, which is applied for in Case 84CW35, Lake Meredith and Lake Henry and/or other storage vessels will be used more extensively in balancing accounts at the end of the winter storage period. LA)
,
r R,
23. If storage space in Pueblo Reservoir is limited, winter water of direct flow entities will have priority over any winter water which storage entities may desire to store in Pueblo Reservoir.
24. The exchange of direct flow diversions at the headgate of the Colorado Canal for diversions to storage at Pueblo Reservoir decreed herein will not affect the limitations on transmountain diversions by the Twin Lakes Reservoir and Canal Company.
25. Pursuant to existing contracts and decrees between the Amity and the Fort Lyon, the Amity is obligated to provide to the Fort Lyon a "quantity of water" out of Queen Reservoir. The Amity and Fort Lyon agree that, to the extent Amity stores water, the "quantity of water" will be provided out of Amity's winter stored water at the outlet works of Queen Reservoir.
26. The decree in this case will not be operated by the Division Engi-neer in a fashion which would reduce the occasions when a futile call has existed on the tributaries of the Arkansas River during the winter storage period.
PARTICIPANTS
o Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District o Amity Mutual Irrigation Company
1-12
o Bessemer Irrigating Ditch Company o Catlin Canal Company
o The Colorado Canal Company o The Fort Lyon Canal Company o The High Line Canal Company
o The Holbrook Mutual Irrigating Company o Lake Henry Reservoir Company
o Lake Meredith Reservoir Company
o Las Animas Consolidated Canal Company o Oxford Farmers Ditch Company
o Riverside Dairy Ditch o West Pueblo Ditch
The water rights of the participants are presented on pages 3 through 16 of the proposed decree, which is included in this report as Appendix A.
WEJ ARKANSAS
RIVE* C
IMPLEMENTATION
'81AN
F
WATE?
RES
SURCES
AND
STATE
PARK EVEL•
'11VMNT
SOUTHEASTERN C LORADO
MARCH
25, 1993
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
A/MISSION
The purpose of this implementation plan is to identify actions recommended by the Lower Arkansas River Commission (LARC) related to John Martin Reservoir and the Great Plains Reservoirs. The plan identifies processes for accomplishing these recommendations. It also proposes operating arrangements that satisfy the commission's interest in protecting the fish and wildlife resource of the Lower Arkansas River and providing recreational opportunities through development of a state park, both to be accomplished while maintaining the viability of the area's agricultural economic base.
The Lower Arkansas River Commission has adopted the following goals and recommendations:
1.
GOAL. Provide water for the permanent recreation pool at John Martin Reservoir. RECOMMENDATION. Lease surplus shares of Twin Lakes water from the Pueblo West Metropolitan District for ten years to fill the 10,000 acre foot permanent pool and, within the first five years of the lease period, acquire sufficient water to replace annual evaporation
losses from the pool.
GOAL. Provide water for a state park, fishery and wildlife at the Great Plains Reservoirs.
RECOMMENDATION. Acquire sufficient water to operate the Great Plains Reservoirs for wildlife and recreation purposes while continuing to provide water for irrigation:
Within three years, enter into agreements with the Amity Irrigation Company, the Fort Lyon Canal Company and others to assure a water supply that protects existing fish and wildlife values.
• Within ten years, acquire interest in the Great Plains Storage Decree and other water rights as necessary to operate the reservoirs in a manner that supports development of a major state park.
Ensure that these arrangements accommodate the Kansas Transit Loss Account, the Winter Water Storage Program and the terms and conditions of the Arkansas River Compact.
GOAL. Establish a state park at the Great Plains Reservoirs on an accelerated schedule.
RECOMMENDATION. Build and operate a water- and wildlife-based state park once sufficient water has been obtained for the reservoirs. Begin joint planning and facility construction in a manner compatible with ultimate park development when fish and wildlife values have been stabilized.
GOAL. Maintain water for viable agriculture and avoid injury to vested water interests; protect and enhance the quality of life for people in the Lower Arkansas Valley.
FINDINGS. The recommended actions provide significant wildlife and recreation benefits while minimizing negative impacts to irrigated agriculture. These benefits, together with a net regional economic gain, will enhance quality of life for people in the Lower Arkansas River valley. The commission believes that the forgoing recommendations will increase options for marketing and using water in the valley without jeopardizing Colorado's interest with respect to the Arkansas River Compact. The recommendations are consistent with public opinion as expressed in a survey conducted by the Human Dimensions Unit at Colorado State University as well as at public meetings conducted by the Governor and the Lower Arkansas River Commission.
The John Martin component of the plan has been approved pursuant to SB 92-167 and is being implemented to capitalize on water available beginning in the spring of 1993. The commission has identified funding sources for the Great Plains project that reflect participation by state, federal, local, and private interests. For this project to proceed in a timely manner, the commission recommends development of funding strategies that identify partnerships for implementing the various phases of project funding and completion.
Approvals by the Wildlife Commission and the Parks Board are conditioned on the establishment of such partnerships.
A project of this magnitude will take several years to complete. The completion of necessary water arrangements will depend on successful negotiations, preparation of engineering support documents, availability of funds and any legal process mandated by the.proposal. The commission considers it essential to identify an organization with responsibility for leading efforts to fully implement the plan. .
STATE OF
COLORADO
EXECUTIVE CHAMBERS 136 State Capitol Denver. Colorado 80203-1792 Phone (303) 866-2471692
EXECUTIVE ORDER Roy Romer Governor.LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER WATER, RECREATION AND WILDLIFE ISSUES
WHEREAS, the State of Colorado and local governments have been working to establish a park in Southeastern Colorado for more than a decade;
WHEREAS, the State of Colorado through the Colorado Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation and the Colorado
Parks Board have made the acquisition and
development of a state park in Southeastern Colorado a priority;
WHEREAS, the State of Colorado and local governments have made extensive efforts with limited success to secure a supply of water for the permanent pool at John Martin Reservoir for fishery and recreational purposes;
WHEREAS, the State of Colorado and local governments have attempted to resolve water availability issues related to the creation of a state park at various other locations in Southeastern Colorado;
WHEREAS, the State of Colorado through the Colorado Division of Wildlife is making a major effort to acquire
riparian habitat along the Arkansas River to
increase and improve wildlife habitat in that area;
WHEREAS, the State of Colorado, local government, and
citizens in Southeastern Colorado have been
concerned about the transfer of water from the lower Arkansas River to front range municipalities;
WHEREAS, the citizens of the State of Colorado, and
especially those in the southeastern part of the state, will benefit from a coordinated effort among state agencies, local governments, federal agencies and the private sector, to address these water, recreation and wildlife issues;
NOW THEREFORE, I, Roy Romer, Governor of Colorado, under the authority vested in me by the constitution and laws of the State of Colorado, do hereby order and direct the following:
92
410
1. A Lower Arkansas River Commission is hereby created, andshall be comprised of one representative from each of the following:
•
a. Baca County; b. Bent County; C. Crowley County; d. Kiowa County; e. Otero County; f. Prowers County;g.
the Executive Director of the Colorado Department ofNatural Resources or his designee;
h. a designee of the Executive Director of the Colorado
Department of Local Affairs;
i. the director of the Colorado Division of Wildlife,
or his designee;
the director of the Colorado Division of Parks ,and Outdoor Recreation, or her designee;
k. the director of the Colorado Water Conservation
Board, or her designee;
1. the Colorado State Engineer, or his designee; and
m. two representatives of irrigated agriculture
appointed by the Southeastern Colorado Water
Conservancy District.
The Lower Arkansas River Commission shall be chaired by the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources or his designee.
2. The Lower Arkansas River Commission shall have the
following responsibilities:
a. prioritize and coordinate efforts to establish a
state park in Southeastern Colorado;
b. coordinate efforts to address the water needs issues
at John Martin Reservoir and the Great Plains Reservoirs;
c. coordinate with affected parties in the lower
Arkansas River in advising the Colorado Water Conservation Board on its implementation of the
•
provisions of Senate Bill 87 authorizing a $100,000 study on the transfer of water from rural to urban needs;
d. identify partnerships to provide necessary monetary
and in-kind contributions needed to establish a state park in Southeastern Colorado and to provide needed water resources at John Martin Reservoir and the Great Plains Reservoirs;
e. advise the Colorado Wildlife Commission and the
Division of Wildlife on the availability of riparian habitat along the lower Arkansas River; and
f. coordinate with federal agencies that have
responsibilities or interests in the six county lower Arkansas area and that may have resources available to help address the issues before the commission.
3. The Lower Arkansas River Commission shall report to me and
the General Assembly, the Colorado. State Parks Board, the
Colorado Wildlife Commission, and the Colorado Water Conservation Board with a work plan and timetable for fulfilling its responsibilities by July 1, 1992.
4. The commission shall coordinate the activities of those
involved and oversee the implementation of its work plan.
5. The Lower Arkansas River Commission shall be staffed by
employees in the Department of Natural Resources as designated by the executive director.
6. The county commissioners of the six involved counties are
requested to provide appropriate staff assistance to the commission, as requested by the executive director of the Department of Natural Resources.
7. This executive order shall expire and be of no further
effect on January 1, 1994, unless otherwise extended by executive order.
GIVEN under my hand and the
SIV 31.:4141,'4 , Executive Seal of the State
(0-4ir--, v of Colorado, this 11th day
-4',&!"1,es • s '.
of May, 190, •
Romer Governor
THE
LOWER _ARKANSAS RIVER COM.MISSION
Ron
Ascherrnann, Rocky Ford
Bob Bauserman,
Otero County Commission,
La
Junta
Ron Desilet, Division of
Wildlife, Colorado Springs
Jan Goedert, SE
Colorado Enterprise Development,
Inc., Lamar
Mark Lowrey, Department of Local Affairs, Pueblo
Jim McCleary, Crowley County Commission, Olney Springs
Steve Miller, Colorado Water Conservation Board, Denver
. Steve Norris, Department of Natural Resources, Denver
Bob Northrup, Lamar
Harrell Ridley, Bent County Commission,
Las Animas
Burl Scherler, Kiowa County Commission,
Sheridan Lake
Don Self, Baca County Commission,
Springfield
Bob Tempel,
Prowers County Commission,
Lamar
Kent
Wiley, Division of
Parks, Colorado Springs
Steve Witte, Division 2
Engineer, Pueblo
gorm?..5*
Appointed by: Governor Roy
Romer
Staffed by:
Colorado Department of Natural Resources
Co-Chairs:
Steve Norris and Ron Desilet
APPENDIX B
LOWER
ARKANSAS
RIVER COMMISSION
CHRONOLOGY
OF
KEY
ACTIVITIES
March 27, 1992 May 9, 1992 May 12, 1992 May 23, 1992 June 1, 1992 June 16, 1992 June 19, 1992 July 1, 1992 July 8, 1992 August 12, 1992 August 27, 1992 September 8, 1992 September 22, 1992 October 15, 1992
•
October 20, 1992 October 23, 1992Governor Romer invited to meet with commissioners from six counties to discuss creation of a state park in SE Colorado. Governor Romer meets with county commissioners and public at Lamar.
Governor issues Executive Order B 006 92 creating and giving direction to the lower Arkansas River Commission.
First meeting of the Commission in Las Animas. Water Supply Subcommittee, Lamar.
State Park Subcommittee, Lamar. Second Commission meeting, Lamar. Funding Subcommittee, Lamar.
Commission Work Plan submitted to Governor and General Assembly.
Water Supply Subcommittee, Lamar. Third Commission meeting, RIcis Funding Subcommittee, Eads.
Implementation Plan Subcommittee, Las Animas. Funding Subcommittee, Pueblo.
Implementation Plan Subcommittee, Las Animas. Fourth Commission meeting, Lamar.
Water Supply Subcommittee, Las Animas. Funding Subcommittee, Las Animas.
•
November 16, 1992
November 20, 1992
December 21, 1992
December 30, 1992
November 6, 1992 Results of public survey released.
November 10, 1992 Fifth Commission meeting, Lamar. Public meeting, Lamar.
Draft Implementation Plan submitted to Governor and General 'Assembly.
Wildlife Commission approves plan for John Martin Reservoir water acquisition.
Executive Director approves plan for John Martin water acquisition.
Sixth Commission meeting, La Junta. February 2, 1993 Great Plains Hydrology Report released. February 17, 1993
111
February 25, 1993 February 26, 1993 March 1, 1993 March 4, 1993 March 5, 1993•
DOW/Boyle engineering meet with Amity to discuss Great Plains Hydrology Report.
DOW/Boyle meet with AVDA to discuss Great Plains Hydrology Report.
Seventh Commission meeting, Lamar. LARC approves recommendations regarding Great Plains Reservoirs. Implementation Plan Subcommittee, Colorado Springs. DOW/Boyle meet with Amity.
Colorado Water Conservation Board resolution.
Eighth Commission meeting, La Junta. LARC approves implementation plan, subject to final changes made at meeting.
STATE OF
COLORADO
EXECUTIVE CHAMBERS 136 State Capitol Denver, Colorado 80203-1792 Phone (303) 866-2471 April 1, 1993Colorado House of Representatives Colorado Senate
Fifty-ninth General Assembly First Regular Session
Denver, CO 80203
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Roy Romer Governor
D1R i Sc
Last May, I established the Lower Arkansas River Commission to coordinate efforts to acquire water and to build a state
park in Southeastern Colorado. The commission recently
completed a plan that recommends activities it believes are needed to accomplish those goals. The executive summary of that plan is enclosed.
Over the past 15 years, much effort has gone into evaluating options and cultivating support for activities that enhance wildlife resources and create new recreational
opportunities in the Lower Arkansas River Valley. If
carried out, the recommendations would help diversify and strengthen the economy and communities of the area.
The commission's recommendations, which I support and urge you to support, are to:
O Acquire water to maintain a permanent pool for
fishing, boating and other recreational activities at the John Martin Reservoir, which now turns into a
barren mud flat during dry years.
O Acquire water to protect existing fish and wildlife
habitat at the Great Plains Reservoirs where
decreasing water levels are threatening the
populations of fish and other wildlife, including two endangered bird species.
O Acquire additional water to enhance recreational
potential at the Great Plains Reservoirs, which are located between Eads and Lamar, as a building block for developing a state park.
O Build and operate a new state park at the Great Plains
Page Two
The Colorado Department of Natural Resources and I are committed to implement this plan in partnership with local
civic and business leaders and federal agencies. The
Department of Natural Resources has outlined the steps we consider necessary to carry out the plan. These steps are summarized in the enclosed table.
The Lower Arkansas River Commission has done an excellent job of addressing most of the problems that have derailed
previous efforts. I am confident that we can avoid
repeating the • Catlin Canal situation where millions of dollars were spent in litigation in a futile attempt to stabilize the water supply at the John Martin Reservoir. Local support for the project has been a priority throughout the commission's planning process and will remain a priority as we implement the plan.
The full implementation of these recommendations may cost in excess of $20 million. For this legislative session, I am asking you for the authority to spend up to $5 million from the Wildlife Cash Fund in accordance with the recent endorsement of the Colorado Wildlife Commission.
I hope you will review the enclosed information. It
represents significant progress in the long-lasting effort to expand the wildlife and recreational resources of Southeastern Colorado. Thank you. Sincerel Roy Gover Enclosures: CC:
Executive Summary of Lower Arkansas River Commission Plan
Outline of Steps to Implement the Plan List of Commission Members
Ken Salazar, Executive Director, Department of Natural Resources
•
•
PLAN TO CARRY OUT LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GREAT PLAINS RESERVOIRS WATER ACQUISITION AND STATE PARK DEVELOPMENT . _ STEP ACTIVITY/RESULT LEAD AGENCY (1) COST EST. (2) . . TIME FRAME ( 3 ) .. 1 Arrange with Amity and Fort Lyon to store water in GPR for continued irrigation and protection of existing fish and wildlife values. DOW $4-12 mil. , 1-3 yrs. . , 2 Prepare a park master plan that also guides facility development during the interim period. . DPOR $70,000 . 2-4 yrs. _ 3 Joint funding of facilities at GPR compatible with park master plan. Joint agreements $200,000 . 3-8 yrs. 4 Build new partnerships. DNR 5 Complete water acquisition and change reservoir operations to support major state park investment. DNR . $3 mil. 4-10 yrs. 6 Build and begin to operate a state park at Great Plains Reservoirs. DPOR $9 mil. 6-12 yrs. _ Notes: (1) Lead agency has main responsibility to create the partnerships that will be needed to accomplish each step. (2) Cost estimates for water acquisition are conservative. Actual cost will depend upon specific arrangements needed, negotiations, plans and other factors not yet fully known. The Division of Wildlife has committed up to $5 million for water acquisition. The Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation has committed up to $7 million for state park construction. ( 3 All years are from 1993. For example, we expect step 4 to be completed between 1997 and 2003.•.
Running river on Priority System just puts river back to when Compact was being considered.
Placating pumps is only a political move not necessarily the disaster all the big shots talk about. Here in the Arkansas Valley we do have some things going our way.
There is the winter water program and the supplemental supply of Fry Ark Water plus the return flows from transmountain diversions. Seems to have boiled down to the use of ground water in Colorado as the problem.
Now I know Colorado should use all water available under the Compact, no mistake about that.
The use of the Priority System in Colorado is not a question. Let's take a look at why pumps came into the picture being used as a supplemental supply to the decreed rights of the canal companies. 1. The drought of the 1930's was what set off the drilling of
wells.
2. Seems as though about every ten years the river supply fell . short of the demand. 1931, 1934, 1944, 1954, 1955, 1963, 1964, 1974, 1977 were the years critical to the supplies of water.
3. The population shifts did not occur till after World War II. Up to the 1950's water supplies were not being strained only in the dry years.
4. With the population shifts and military installations the problems in Colorado would strain the water supplies.
5. Along with 40 hour week came the recreational demands.
6. As the population shifted to Colorado so did water demands. 7. Many developers chose not to acquire water rights just dig a
hole in the ground to acquire a water supply. 8. Many cities' water supply came from ground water.
9. The Good Life idea was to use water or it's fruits to attract new industry to the area, nice lawns, golf courses with recreation facilities.
10. Water became the attraction. A good clean supply was and is a necessity. Many cities did acquire good surface supplies.
•
11. Many cities decided to use ground water supplies available. 12. Seems to me for a good number (1950-1966) of years everybody
done as they damn well pleased. Many later than that.
13. Lawyers, court and the legislature took the easy way out and created the system.
14. The theme was to use all the water available plus transmountain diversions to maximum.
15. Now I submit the land holder, the farmer, put in pumps to get an added supply of water to add to the river decrees which the canal companies held for its stockholders.
16. Everyone that could get a well here in the valley did exactly that.
17. The passage of 1066 in 1966 by the legislature was an attempt -to bring the use of ground water under control.
18. The courts and the legislature seem bent on maximum use of the great economic values of water.
19. The idea of the State of Colorado being involved in compact with other states has always lurked in the background.
20. Colorado has had to curtail the use of Colorado water in Colorado to meet the obligations of Compacts with other states.
21. In order to get equity here in Colorado in the Kansas suit, the use of wells for water supplies has to be the wells of the Arkansas Basin not just the irrigation pumps from Pueblo to the state line.
22. Colorado cannot abandon the Priority System.
23. Under the Priority System water can have a change of use if it does not injure senior water rights.
24. Now I know the use of water seems to get more complicated each day. There are demands from all interests for each one's desires.
25. Seems as the do gooders have stopped worthwhile storages of water. Storage does create problems, yes, but probably not as much as no storage and a strained water supply.
11
1 26. Nature calls the shots of what will be drought or floods. Drought creates supply problems. When rivers flood it's getting shut of excess supplies._
•
27. The big water years take care of themselves.
28. Drought years are the problems in short water years. Each ' should try to conserve.
29. Seems to me there is no such thing as long time planning only up to a point.
30. The conditions that change with the change of times are totally unpredictable 50 years in advance.
31. We have to live day by day, year by year, not 50 years in the future. Many of us ain't going to make the next fifty.
I. Under the Kansas-Colorado Compact the water for Kansas is measured at the State Line. District 67 got credit for it's return flows as related to State Line measurement. Pumps took up these return flows.
II. Under the 1980 account system each canal got it's water in accounts based on theoretical withdrawal at rate of 2500 acre feet per day. Thus in a few days entities had account water in their name.
III. The storage charges to water stored in John Martin by Amity, Ft. Lyon and the Consolidated charging 35% for storage rights were used to pay transit loss of water lost delivering water to the state line.
•
•
First, the Committee has to admit that increased use of water in Colorado has created problems. There has to be a reduction in the economy in the Arkansas Valley.
Second, Colorado wants more water for recreation (Great Plains) with 20% efficiency and 80% loss.
Colorado wants water to protect the pumps.
Third, more water is required for the losses Kansas has required to keep the Compact whole.
I may be old fashioned, but you can't have things both ways. If Colorado pumpers are required to make complete augmentation which will have to be done to protect the Priority System in Colorado, there has to be reduction in use of water in Colorado.
As the augmentation of water in Colorado comes into place the so-called transmountain return flows will be taken from the river. Seems as these flows have masked the actual losses that could have occurred to the state of Kansas.
With the withdrawal of these return flows used for augmentation by the cities in the Arkansas Valley and the Fountain Valley, the burden will increase to keep compact whole.
With Colorado setting the use of well consumption at 75% in the court in California or the Master using the 75% figure, we got problems.
With 23 years of the river flows at Pueblo below the average of 450,887 AF for 42 years and 1957 at 984,470 AF, 1965 at 738,900 AF, 1984 at 923,770 AF, 1983 at 679,800 AF, 1987 at 730,200 AF, averages look backwards.
Colorado use of ground water is and has created problems, at whose expense should the solution come from?
It is my opinion water is legally diverted on a daily basis. There cannot be averages without grave harm to senior decreed water rights in dry years.
The thing the Master has said the use of ground water has in his findings violated Article IV of the Compact.
The one thing that is very apparent is from the lawsuit there ain't anybody smart enough to predict what will happen for the next 50 years. I banked with H. B. Mendenhall from 1928 till his death in the sixties. Those men were the most knowledgeable of the time. They could not foresee the development of huge pumping at the time.
_
So don't kid yourself, we are not any more far seeing than those able men.
Times change without your permission regardless .
I do know common sense and politics are coincidental. If we are to have a lasting peace in the water business it is my belief the answer is based on honesty and dealing with the facts. Mistakes have been made by the legislators, the courts and the administering of water in Colorado.
The question to me is, do we do what's right to protect the Priority System in Colorado?
There is simply not enough water for: Increase in Recreation
Buy water for Pumps
Deliver more water to Kansas
The augmentation water for pumps will not come from transmountain return flow at very best a short time.
Has the time come to take agriculture water, from gravity flow to pumps? At what price? Where has the Priority System gone to a whole in the ground?
•
ARKANSAS RIVER COORDINATING COMMITTEE
Agenda October 12, 1994 Pueblo Board of Water Works
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Organization and procedural matters, including future presentations and
agenda topics
Review summary of previous meeting and current agenda
Engineering information from the Kansas v. Colorado case
Presentation of the 1980 Operating Plan
Discussion of current and future Rules concerning the use of ground water
The public is invited to attend and observe the proceedings,
ARKANSAS RIVER COORDINATING COMMITTEE
MEETING SUMMARY SEPTEMBER 22, 1994
The first meeting of the Arkansas River Coordinating Committee was held in La Junta on September 22, 1994. Most of the Committee members were in attendance or represented.
General Agenda , Welcome and charge to the Committee
Jim Lochhead welcomed the committee and described how the group was formed: by Executive Order, and why: 1) to advise and make recommendations to the State Engineer for development and implementation of necessary rules, 2) to make recommendations to the Governor, Legislature, and State Engineer of appropriate remedy for any findings of past depletions to Kansas for which we must provide compensation, and 3) to coordinate with the Lower Arkansas River Commission so that the development of a State Park in southeastern Colorado does not conflict over water needs for park purposes and also to satisfy demands from Kansas.
•
•
Co-chair Chuck Lie recognized the Arkansas River Compact Administration members and asked them to describe their expectations of the Committee. James Rogers said that he expects to have to make a decision sooner or later, and hopes to work with upstream water users and the State of Colorado to achieve a workable decision. Carl Genova said he hopes for productive work from the Committee. Co-chair Hal Simpson thanked the Committee members for their participation. He said that he could wait for the Kansas lawsuit to conclude, but prefers to be proactive in preparation for additional rulings from the Special Master and the final ruling by the Supreme Court. He said that he seeks advice from this Committee on methods to solve problems, sees it as an opportunity to communicate, and noted the amount of expertise at the table that could be drawn upon to develop solutions.
Chuck Lile said that he appreciated the attendance of the Committee members especially in light of work demands and travel distances. He said that he is concerned with protecting the economy of the valley, and seeks the input and ideas of Committee members to build a coordinated effort to work in that direction. The duty of the Compact Administration is to achieve compliance with the Compact, but as the third member of the Administration he's looking for solutions that have consensus.
Briefing on status of litigation with Kansas
David Robbins, Special Assistant Attorney General, provided the briefing and answered questions. Kansas filed their complaint in 1985, and after extensive preparation, we went to trial in 1990, and with. some intervening delays, concluded the initial phase of trial in 1992. Trial was held before a Special Master appointed by the Supreme Court. The Special Master issued his report in July 1994 which will be forwarded to the Supreme Court when it reconvenes in October. The Supreme Court's likely briefing schedule may require briefs filed in early 1995, with a possible oral argument in Spring 1995 "on exceptions" (the two parties disagreements with the Special Master's report). The Special Master's report may be accepted, rejected, or modified by the Supreme Court, but there is no appeal from the Court's decision.
•
•
•
The Arkansas River Compact, unlike other compacts, has no delivery requirement. Rather, the compact set levels of use, apportioned the use of John Martin Reservoir and set release rates. Kansas' case initially was filed on three points of contention over water operations in Colorado: 1) operation of the winter water storage program, 2) operation of Trinidad Reservoir, and 3) the development of wells subsequent to the Compact. The Special Master summarily dismissed Kansas' claim on the first two issues, but did find some diminution of state line flows as a result of post-compact well development in Colorado. In phase 2 of the case, the Special Master and the Court will determine the quantities of water or amount of injury.
Kansas' model did show - and Colorado's experts agree - that there was some impact on stateline flows from post-compact well pumping. The amount of additional diminution of flows hinged in part on the allowed amount of pumping attributable to pre-compact wells: Kansas sought 11 thousand acre-feet (KAF) annually, Colorado sought 30-35 KAF; the Master set 15 KAF. We will argue that this ruling
was punitive, and that Kansas is guilty of "latches", because Kansas did not complain of the alleged injury until 1984 or 1985. We also argued that well development in Kansas contributed to the problem, but the Master found that development was primarily in the 1970s.
If the Supreme Court accepts the Special Master's report, we'd proceed to the damages phase, to determine the amount and method of repayment. The Supreme Court will ultimately decide. Who's responsible for payment? The judgement will lie against the State of Colorado, and the political process will decide how the judgement is satisfied. Note that the Federal government has a strong handle on the Arkansas in the form of many federal project reservoirs (John Martin, Pueblo, Trinidad). The Court could appoint a Water Master to operate these reservoirs until the judgement is satisfied: Kansas is expected to add recent years' (86-95) depletions when they get the ruling they expect, and would thereby be entitled to damages for that additional period until such time as we begin to meet our obligation.
David Robbins suggested emphatically that we'll best be served by having more accurate and complete. well pumping data because the Master was incredulous at our lack of data in this one significant area. This may indeed have worked to our detriment as an overestimate of the amount of pumping.
There followed some discussion between David Robbins and the Committee members regarding the merits of paying Kansas with water, vs paying in dollars.
Jeris Danielson asked about the role of the Committee on intrastate impacts vs interstate impacts. Jim Lochhead responded that he felt the Committee could go as far as it wants to, and suggested a step-by-step approach to work through these issues with the understanding that we cannot solve them all at once.
Status of Rules & Regulations
Hal Simpson mentioned that there seemed to be some progress in improving the [amount of] replacement water available both to compensate for effects in Colorado, and effects at the stateline. He described the recent rules promulgated. The new rules require large capacity wells in the Arkansas River basin to submit records of well pumping. The purpose of these records is to acquire adequate data on pumping to assist in the defense in Phase 2 of the trial. The well owner has the option of either (installing and) operating a well meter, or computing pumping volume based upon a pump test and a power coefficient. Hal said that he expects to see higher power coefficients than were determined in previous studies and thus less efficient wells pumping lesser volumes of water. He also expects the rules to be important in allocating costs of being in a replacement plan or organization. He described
the seminar which was conducted to certify individuals who could conduct proper pump testing. Hal also mentioned that he welcomes and seeks the advice of the Committee on phasing of the additional
410
rules that may be necessary to bring ourselves into compliance.Jeris Danielson recommended strong enforcement of the Rules, and asked if people had been hired to perform these activities. Hal replied that people had been hired and were being trained.
•
Question from another Committee member: Should the 3-day pumping rule be changed? Hal responded that he seeks the advice of the Committee on this subject.
Frank Milenski stressed that if the 3-day rule is to be changed, the farmers who rely on that rule need to know soon so that they can adequately prepare for planting next spring. Chuck responded that this should be an early agenda item.
Role of the Water Conservation Board
Chuck Lile described the established precedents for cooperation between the Water Conservation Board, the legislature, and water users to collaboratively solve problems. He recommended that this Committee work on developing solutions one step at a time. He recommended that the Committee concentrate on the following issues early: keep any debt from climbing by heading off additional depletions, or "stopping the bleeding". He suggested that about a year from now we have a concept that we can take to the legislature. To develop this concept, we need lots of information exchange so that we can receive and evaluate ideas. He further suggested that we should deal with our own problems internally; "the prospect of a federal Water Master is scary."
Role of Lower Arkansas River Commission (LARC)
Ron Desilet of the Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOW) described the history and time schedule for the efforts of the LARC. LARC developed a plan in 1992 and 1993, which was submitted to the legislature. The Legislature made a $5 million appropriation for the following purposes: water for the permanent pool at John Martin, and water for fish and wildlife values at the Great Plains Reservoirs. DOW has initiated appraisal of the sample farm under the Amity Canal, will soon complete engineering designs on the Amity and Ft Lyon canals for drop structures, and have finished construction of an island at NeeNoshe Reservoir for threatened and endangered species (piping plover, least tern, etc) In the future, he expects DOW to develop contingent contracts for delivery of water.
Committee Organization
Hal asked the Committee how often it wanted to meet. The general reply was that monthly was ok for now, maybe more often at first, with the meetings to rotate around to different locations.
The Committee agreed that its next meeting would be in Pueblo on October 12th, at 1:00 PM, probably at one of the City of Pueblo facilities, to be announced later. The Committee also agreed to another meeting in La Junta on October 27th.
After much discussion of topics for the first two meetings, the following three topics were decided for. the agenda for the October 12th meeting:
The basis and operation of the 3-day pumping rule and other rules
The engineering side of the Kansas case (presenters probably Dennis Montgomery and Duane Helton)
The 1980 Operating Plan (presenter Steve Witte)
Chuck Lile asked for the Committee members' thoughts about how the group will operate (consensus?) He suggested that voting isn't expected, and doesn't want anyone to feel they're being left out. "Voting may polarize, and that's not what we're here for."
Jeris Danielson asked if we're going to have to report to the Governor. Chuck responded that we'll need something to take to the Governor and Legislature.
Hal stressed that he needs consensus on advice; another possibility might be written advice on a workable solution. He recommends consensus as being about 2/3rds of the Committee.
Frank Milenski asked for early discussion of where water is being used, where pumped, where augmentation is coming from, etc. Hal replied that the pumping data will come in after the end of the 94 season.
Committee's discussion with Governor Romer
Governor Romer arrived and visited with the Committee: He asked if the Committee had the necessary membership. There appeared to be consensus that the Committee represented most of the stakeholders, those affected by the outcomes, and those who must make the tough decisions that will be required. The Governor stressed that Colorado's response to the suit must be sensitive to concerns of the Valley residents, should avoid conflict, and should not prevent development of a State Park. He expects the Committee to be instrumental for a collective, collaborative, creative, and cost-effective response. He knows that this will not be easy - there will be some conflicting wants and demands, but is confident that the Committee can be constructive if it avoids fragmentation. There's a lot at stake.
Governor Romer asked the group if this was a doable deal. Responses included "If it's not we'll find out soon.", "Let's not let it drag out.", and "It's doable, but tough."
Frank Milenski asked the Governor that given the competing demands for water and limited supply, does he favor paying Kansas in dollars or water. The Governor replied that although he had not consulted with his advisors that on first impression it seems like that with water being in limited supply it might be easier to find dollars than water. Jim Lochhead suggested that this is an important question open for the Committee's recommendations.
In closing, the Governor stressed that Colorado's population will double by the year 2050 - we need long-term thinkers!
arccmtgl.smy
A SUMMARY OF COMPACTS AND LITIGATION GOVERNING
COLORADO'S USE OF INTERSTATE STREAMS
•
ARKANSAS RIVER COMPACT December 14, 1948
Signatory States: Colorado and Kansas
Colorado Commissioners:
Major Purposes:
One resident from former Water District 14 or 17, one resident from former Water District 67, and the Director of the Colorado Water Conservation Board
1. Settle existing and future controversy between the states concerning the utilization of the waters of the Arkansas River (Art. I)
2. Equitably divide and apportion the waters of the Arkansas River between Colorado and Kansas as well as the benefits which arise from the construction of John Martin Reservoir (Art. I)
Salient Provisions:
1. The conservation pool at John Martin Reservoir will be operated for the benefit of water users in Colorado and Kansas, both upstream and downstream from the dam. (Art. IV) 2. The Compact is not intended to impede development of the Arkansas Basin in either state
provided that the waters of the Arkansas River shall not be materially depleted in usable quantity or availability. (Art. IV)
3. From November 1st to March 31st (winter storage) of each year, all water entering John Martin Reservoir shall be stored up to the limit of the conservation pool, except that Colorado can demand release of the river inflow up to 100 cfs as long as no waste occurs. (Art. 'V)
4. Summer storage in John Martin Reservoir shall commence on April 1st and continue to October 31st of each year. All water entering the reservoir during this period shall be stored except:
a. When Colorado water users are operating under decreed priorities.
b. Colorado may demand releases of river inflow up to 500 cfs and Kansas may demand releases of water equivalent to that portion of river inflow between 500 cfs and 750 cfs regardless of Colorado releases.
(Art V) ,
5. Releases of stored water shall be made upon concurrent or separate demands by Colorado or Kansas at any time during the summer storage period. Limitations imposed are:
ARKANSAS (CONTD)
a. Unless specifically authorized by the Compact Administration separate releases by Colorado shall not exceed 750 cfs and separate releases by Kansas shall not exceed 500 cfs.
b. Concurrent releases shall not exceed 1250 cfs.
c. When water stored in the conservation pool is less than 20,000 AF, releases to Kansas shall not exceed 400 cfs and concurrent releases shall not exceed 1000 cfs. (Art V) 6. When the supply in the conservation pool falls below a 14-day supply level, the Compact
Administration will notify the State Engineer of Colorado of the date when the supply will be exhausted, and at that time, Colorado priorities above and below the dam will be administered together. (Art. V)
7. When water is available .in the conservation pool at John Martin Reservoir, Colorado users above the dam shall not be effected by priorities located below John Martin Reservoir. (Art. V)
8. When Colorado reverts to administration of decreed priorities, Kansas shall not be entitled to any river flow entering John Martin Reservoir. (Art V)
ARKANSAS
RIVER COORDINATING COMMITTEE
1. Number of Wells (Colo. Exh. 851)
Colorado Kansas
1948 849
1949 717
1985 2,057 2,543
2. Post-Compact Pumping Estimates (Colo. Exh. 852)
Colorado
Kansas1950-85 Avg. 145,200 161,395
3. Pre-Compact Pumping Estimates (Cob. Exhs. 853 and 993)
USGS Colorado 20-1fr.-1',5-/ód 6..1 4-7_ 1940 2,000 36,837 1941 5,000 21,263. 1942 6,000 14 891_.---13 / 5 1943 7,000 26,019 el q''n/R- ' 1944 9,000 16,970 ..---1945 9,000 19,609 1946 15,000 30,841 1947 15,000 27,596 1948 15,000 24,475 1949 23,000 33,777 4. Transmountain Deliveries Colorado Kansas Total 1950-85 2,176,006 2,017,462 Average 60,445 56,041 Maximum 129,553 90,533 Minimum 27,136 20,510 2,023,576 56,210 99,821 19,746
•
5. Depletions to Total Stateline Flows (Colo. Exh. 975)
Original H-T Model Colorado Analysis Revised H-I Model 1950-85 1,570,000 583,000 613,300 (Comp. 6) 395,400 (Comp. 5)
6. Depletions to Usable Flow (Durbin Usable Flow Method wTharson Coefficients)
1950-85
Revised H-I Model Kansas Pumping Estimates
(Comp. 6)
Depletions Depletions & Accretions
355,900 332,200
7. Revised Pumping Estimates Based on Master's Report
1950-85
Revised H-I Model HCI Usable Larson Coefficients
Depletions Depletions & Accretions
334,900 309,200
8. Colorado's Pre- and Post-Compact Pumping Estimates (Colo. Exh. 975, Comp. 5)
1950-85
Revised H-1- Model
Depletions
HCI Usable Larson Coefficients
Depletions & Accretions
230,900 194,800
9. Individual Depletions (not offset by transmountain deliveries) cola. Exh. 1002)
NUMBER OF WELLS AND PUMPING CAPACITY BY DITCH SERVICE AREA IN 1985
Ditch Service Area (1) Reach 3: Bessemer WHR System Booth Orchard Excelsior Collier Colorado R.F. Highline Oxford Farmers Otero Catlin Holbrook Rocky Ford Fort Lyon
L.A.C.C. & L.A.T.D. Other Irrigated Baldwin Stubbs Subtotal Reach 4: Fort Bent Keesee Amity Lamar/Manvel Hyde X-Y Graham Buffalo Other Irrigated Sisson-Stubbs Stateline Pumpers Subtotal
Reach Not Identified Other Irrigated Grand Total Notes: (1) (2) Kansas ---No. cfs (2) (3) 508 325 • 40 38 31 54 8 12 145 181 109 93 90 75 32 31 164 198 63 72 54 68 409 690 67 117 • 27 54 ==== ==== 1747 2008 62 126 7 20 152 372 63 191 16 45 56 249 42 169 4 20 • ==== ==== 402 1193 394 675 2543 3875 ---- Colorado ---- 1 --- Difference --- 1 No. cfs No. cfs (4) (5) (6) (7) 375 268 6 7 36 36 32 57 10 12 74 83 111 99 87 74 20 20 154 •182 53 62 42 53 376 641 66 112 159 251 ==== ==== 1601 1957 48 113 8 23 131 290 69 205 11 28 46 224 39 163 104 357 ==== ==== 456 1403 2057 3360 133 57 -6 -7 4 2 -1 -3 -2 -0 71 98 -2 -6 3 1 12 11 10 16 10 10 12 15 33 49 1 5 -159 -251 27 54 ==== ==== 146 51 14 13 -1 -3 21 82 -6 -14 5 17 10 25 3 6 -104 -357 4 20 • ==== ==== -54 -211 394 675 486 515
Kansas values were obtained from the August 1990 Well Data Base by S.W.E.
Colorado values were obtained from the October 1990 Colorado Well Data Base. Values for the Fort Lyon Canal include those in both Reaches 3 and 4.
DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT
105 rigina
