HOW TO SOLVE COSTLY WATER LAW INTERRUPTIONS

You can solve COSTLY water law interruptions, by reaffirming State Water Engineers to administer, distribute and regulate the water of the state...


A Resolution

A Resolution to reaffirm the process by which Colorado Water Rights are to be administered under the statutory laws of the State of Colorado.

Be it hereby resolved by this legislative body, the State of Colorado directs and requires State Water Engineers to administer, distribute and regulate the water of the state in a manner consistent with the rules of the Prior Appropriation system: *“First in time, first in right" or "Prior Appropriation” doctrine is based on *Priority Date and amount, aka *Allotment Quantity,” of both surface water and groundwater tributary to a surface stream.

"Be it hereby resolved by this legislative body, the State of Colorado directs and requires State Water Engineers to administer, distribute and regulate the water of the state..."

There has been no law made that extinguished, “first in time, first in right.” Therefore, we wholly defer to C.R.S. 37-92-102 and hereby declare C.R.S. 37-92-102 stand as the policy of the state of Colorado that, in the determination of water rights, uses, and administration of water, the following principles shall apply:

The Legislator finds the language of this Statute to be clear and unambiguous.

This Resolution hereby orders the State Engineer shall apply the law as it is written.

From: C.R.S. 37-92-102 Legislative declaration basic tenets of                    

Colorado Water Law

The Resolution

(2) Recognizing that previous and existing laws have given inadequate attention to the development and use of underground waters of the state, that the use of underground waters as an independent source or in conjunction with surface waters is necessary to the present and future welfare of the people of this state, and that the future welfare of the state depends upon a sound and flexible integrated use of all waters of the state, it is hereby declared to be the further policy of the state of Colorado that, in the determination of water rights, uses, and administration of water, the following principles shall apply:

· (a) Water rights and uses vested prior to June 7, 1969, in any person by virtue of previous or existing laws, including an appropriation from a well, shall be protected subject to the provisions of this article.

· (b) The existing use of groundwater, either independently or in conjunction with surface rights, shall be recognized to the fullest extent possible, subject to the preservation of other existing vested rights, but, at his own point of diversion on a natural watercourse, each diverter must establish some reasonable means of effectuating his diversion. He is not entitled to command the whole flow of the stream merely to facilitate his taking the fraction of the whole flow to which he is entitled.

· (c) The use of groundwater may be considered as an alternate or *supplemental source of supply for surface decrees entered prior to June 7, 1969, taking into consideration both previous usage and the necessity to protect the vested rights of others.

· (d) No reduction of any lawful diversion because of the operation of the priority system shall be permitted unless such reduction would increase the amount of water available to and required by water rights having senior priorities.”

*Supplemental  -well drilled prior to 1969 will have the same priority date as the original surface appropriation and can be used to supplement the surface allotment quantity only up to the adjudicated amount of the original surface appropriation. Any water pumped above the total original surface appropriation amount will only have a priority of the date upon which the well was drilled and put to beneficial use. This was the intent of the State legislature as expressed in this Statute.

*First in time, first in right. An appropriation is made when an individual physically takes water from a stream (or underground aquifer) and places that water to some type of beneficial use. The first person to appropriate water and apply that water to use has the first right to use that water within a particular stream system. This person (after receiving a court decree verifying their priority status) then becomes the senior water right holder on the stream, and that water right must be satisfied before any other water rights can be fulfilled.

*Priority date: “previous, existing, pre-existing, valid, vested and senior water rights.” and amount of surface and groundwater connected, not separate.

The appropriation date of a water right is the earliest date on which the applicant can demonstrate the initiation of the appropriation, and applies to surface and groundwater (conjunctive use) tributary to a surface stream. Surface water and groundwater are connected.

*Allotment Quantity: Assume three water-users exist on a stream system with adjudicated water rights totaling 5 cfs (cubic feet per second). The user with the earliest priority date has a decree for 2 cfs, the second priority has a decree for 2 cfs, and the third priority right has a decree for 1 cfs of water. When the stream is carrying 5 cfs of water or more, all of the rights on this stream can be fulfilled. However, if the stream is carrying only 3 cfs of water, its priority number 3 will not receive any water, with priority number 2 receiving only half of its 2 cfs right. Priority number 1 will receive its full amount of 2 cfs under this scenario.

This process of allocating water to various water users is traditionally referred to as "Water Rights Administration," and is the responsibility of the Division of Water 
_______________________________________________________________

In respect to The Resolution and articles on Water, here’s how Dr. Angus McIntosh sums up everything succinctly!

“All of this junk they are spouting is irrelevant to the point of The Resolution. That is: Implement and enforce the prior appropriation doctrine. First in time first in right. Senior appropriators must receive their amount of water (from either surface or ground water) before junior appropriators.
Rising groundwater tables in the up-stream areas are the result of NOT allowing upstream seniors to withdraw their senior water amounts from the system. 
Allowing seniors to supplement surface water with hydrologically connected groundwater from the same system does not deprive juniors of their rights. 
Using supplemental wells to fulfill seniority rights may naturally restore historical groundwater tables without the need for implementing elaborate, complicated, theory-based augmentation/dewatering bureaucratic schemes.”
Dr. Angus McIntosh

_____________________________________________

Dear Tyler,

Please consider my comments highlighted in gray.

Thank you,

Roni Bell Sylvester

Greeley Tribune Wednesday February 14, 2018

South Platte study yields costly fixes for runaway water storage.

By Tyler Silvey

UP NEXT

The South Platte Basin Roundtable will hear a presentation from its ad hoc groundwater technical committee regarding groundwater issues around Gilcrest at its next meeting. That meeting is 4-6 p.m. March 13 at the Southwest Weld County Service Center, 4209 Weld County Road 24.5.

READ THE STUDY

To read the entire South Platte Storage Study, click here.

Longmont — A yearlong study centered on a decades-long trend of Colorado sending too much water to Nebraska via the South Platte River yielded dozens of potential storage projects. Yet John Stulp claims, “When we can’t meet the water commitment for the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program (PRRIP) we have to meet the financial commitment.”

We demand full disclosure and audit of the PRRIP!  

But high costs, potential environmental impacts, and bureaucratic and regulatory hurdles could doom the road ahead for any of those possibilities, according to a study presented Tuesday night at the South Platte Basin Roundtable meeting in Longmont.

Further, even if several of the identified projects happen, they would barely put a dent in what's expected to be a Front Range water needs gap of 500,000 acre feet per year.

The $200,000 study, ordered by the Colorado State Legislature and paid for by the Colorado Water Conservation Board, looked at the South Platte from Greeley to the state line and identified potential storage solutions along the way.

What are the accrued “study” costs since HB 1278?

Putting any of those solutions — with costs estimates ranging from $190 million to $1 billion — to work most likely will take more time, money and study.

The honest, real time “solution” of the Resolution, whereas “pre-existing” water rights would be reaffirmed and implemented, would come in at approximately 10.5% of their figures. Here’s a general breakout: Approximately 4,000 wells were shut down. Let’s say to install new or restoration of old wells + power would cost about $50,000 each.  $50,000 X’s 4,000 =’s $20,000,000. $20,000,000 is about 10.5% of $190 million. Because the State caused the problem, the State needs to fix it. $20 million is less than $190 million with the result of actually fixing the problem today.

"I think the consultants did an excellent job with the limited resources that they had," Frank said. Frank who?

Consultants from Stantec Consulting Services and Leonard Rice Engineers completed the study in December and have toured the state making presentations. The Legislature has yet to get a presentation, but here are the key points legislators will hear:

A large amount of water is physically and legally available but only during wet years and during short periods. At zero cost to taxpayers, all they had to do is ask any farmer about “historic flows.” Or, just go to the library.

Mainstream options have the most benefit but likely are not permittable and have significant social impacts. Have no idea what this even means. In what context do they include “permittalble?”

Many off-channel options appear to be feasible and could be combined in different concepts. A good “combo” would be surface and ground. That’s already in “pre-existing” water rights.

Even multiple projects won't make a big dent in the supply gap.

One reason for the lack of impact is how the South Platte works. When farmers divert water from the South Platte to irrigate crops, some of that water soaks underground and slowly moves back to the river. That's called a return flow, and return flows feed the South Platte to allow it to flow long after snowmelt water is gone for the season.

That's why the Sterling No. 1 ditch can completely dry out the river with a diversion and then a mile downriver it's flowing again. Because the Sterling 1 has a Junior water right, there’s no obligation to “fill it out of priority.”

That's why the best possible place for a reservoir would be near the Colorado-Nebraska border, and the best solution for keeping as much water as possible — a mainstream reservoir — is the solution that likely never will happen. Why so they need another “reservoir?” They already built one in the upper end right under our feet! That, is what’s causing the high water!

A mainstream reservoir along the South Platte essentially would be a lake on the South Platte, with the western portion feeding into the lake and the eastern portion running when the lake releases water.

Water experts agree that would be nearly impossible to get approved. Wonder how they managed to “get approved” the Reuter Hess in such record time?

But the consultants did identify storage options away from the river, including old gravel pits.

Still, building ditches or pipes to fill those gravel pits would prove costly. But not near as costly as simply returning the property rights of pumping water conjunctively and in prior appropriation!

The consultants also talked about the 2013 flood and high flows in 2015, which ended up sending 1.9 million acre feet of water to Nebraska — exponentially more water than Nebraska is entitled to via the 1923 compact with Colorado.

But managing or diverting water during a flood event like that would take technology water experts said just doesn't exist. Instead, ditch companies did everything they could to keep the flood water out of their ditches, lest they get damaged by the torrent.

Groundwater storage also was touched on, but concerns were raised about water losses and the co-mingling of other water rights. What “property rights?” Who, where, what dates etc.? Once the water flows under another landowner's property, for example, they would have the right to pump that water to irrigate crops. If State honored the authority/statute/law of State Water Engineers to “administer in prior appropriation,” none of this discussion would take place.

The conversation circled back to the reason for the study. Essentially, lawmakers on the Western Slope long have pointed to the excess water the Front Range sends to Nebraska. Rather than divert more water from the Western Slope, the argument goes, Front Range farmers and municipalities need to figure out how to keep what they have. The “Resolution” would resolve all of this!

Mike Schimmin, a water rights attorney on the roundtable, said his fear is the study will reinforce those feelings and that people will ignore the high cost to capture the extra water.

"Developing even 10 percent of that, at $30,000-$40,000 per acre foot, is really difficult," Schimmin said. Mike Schimmin represents junior water rights owners on the lower end who figured out how to shut down senior water rights, and “capture the ‘new’ extra water” in their newly formed underground reservoir.

Tyler, all their talk about “costs and hydrology,” is a stall tactic they’re using in order to insure their “revenue stream” never ends. It’s called “stealing.” We know they’re stealing, they know they’re stealing. Some have even said to our sources, “I think we’ve been found out.” Well, they’re right. Although they were “found out” about in 2013, when many told me, “if any pumping of senior wells are allowed, people will be sued!”

Notice how none of the legislators will acknowledge our solution, via the Resolution? That in itself is very telling. It’s also telling – and extremely disturbing - when legislators who don’t know anything at all about water law, keep creating bills.

Please think about that, then come visit with us (us being all the Senior Water Rights Owners whose wells have been shut down).”

Thank you,

Roni

— Tyler Silvy covers government and politics for The Greeley Tribune. Reach him at tsilvy@greeleytribune.com. Connect with him at Facebook.com/TylerSilvy or @TylerSilvy on Twitter.

LEGISLATORS - OVERHYDRATION OF S. PLATTE RIVER INJURES PROPERTY!

Dear Honorable Legislators, 

We offer to you, "A Resolution to reaffirm the process by which Colorado Water Rights are to be administered under the statutory laws of the State of Colorado."

Because Coloradans have a long standing history of supporting and enforcing "pre-existing law," we believe your sponsorship and ultimate passage of this Resolution will have 100% support. 

We encourage the addressed in this email, to please let your legislators know you "support this Resolution." 

This Resolution will resolve Water problems statewide.

Thank you for your consideration. 

Coloradans 

_________________________________

A Resolution

A Resolution to reaffirm the process by which Colorado Water Rights are to be administered under the statutory laws of the State of Colorado.

Be it hereby resolved by this legislative body, the State of Colorado directs and requires State Water Engineers to administer, distribute and regulate the water of the state in a manner consistent with the rules of the Prior Appropriation system: *“First in time, first in right" or "Prior Appropriation” doctrine is based on *Priority Date and amount, aka *Allotment Quantity,” of both surface water and groundwater tributary to a surface stream.  

There has been no law made that extinguished, “first in time, first in right.” Therefore,  we wholly defer to C.R.S. 37-92-102 and hereby declare C.R.S. 37-92-102 stand as the policy of the state of Colorado that, in the determination of water rights, uses, and administration of water, the following principles shall apply:

The Legislator finds the language of this Statute to be clear and unambiguous.

This Resolution hereby orders the State Engineer shall apply the law as it is written.  

From: C.R.S. 37-92-102 Legislative declaration basic tenets of Colorado Water Law

“(2)  Recognizing that previous and existing laws have given inadequate attention to the development and use of underground waters of the state, that the use of underground waters as an independent source or in conjunction with surface waters is necessary to the present and future welfare of the people of this state, and that the future welfare of the state depends upon a sound and flexible integrated use of all waters of the state, it is hereby declared to be the further policy of the state of Colorado that, in the determination of water rights, uses, and administration of water, the following principles shall apply:

·       (a)  Water rights and uses vested prior to June 7, 1969, in any person by virtue of previous or existing laws, including an appropriation from a well, shall be protected subject to the provisions of this article.

·       (b)  The existing use of groundwater, either independently or in conjunction with surface rights, shall be recognized to the fullest extent possible, subject to the preservation of other existing vested rights, but, at his own point of diversion on a natural watercourse, each diverter must establish some reasonable means of effectuating his diversion. He is not entitled to command the whole flow of the stream merely to facilitate his taking the fraction of the whole flow to which he is entitled.

·       (c) The use of groundwater may be considered as an alternate or * supplemental source of supply for surface decrees entered prior to June 7, 1969, taking into consideration both previous usage and the necessity to protect the vested rights of others.

·       (d) No reduction of any lawful diversion because of the operation of the priority system shall be permitted unless such reduction would increase the amount of water available to and required by water rights having senior priorities.”

*Supplemental well drilled prior to 1969 will have the same priority date as the original surface appropriation and can be used to supplement the surface allotment quantity only up to the adjudicated amount of the original surface appropriation. Any water pumped above the total original surface appropriation amount will only have a priority of the date upon which the well was drilled and put to beneficial use. This was the intent of the State legislature as expressed in this Statute. 

_____________________________________________________

*First in time, first in right. An appropriation is made when an individual physically takes water from a stream (or underground aquifer) and places that water to some type of beneficial use. The first person to appropriate water and apply that water to use has the first right to use that water within a particular stream system. This person (after receiving a court decree verifying their priority status) then becomes the senior water right holder on the stream, and that water right must be satisfied before any other water rights can be fulfilled.

*Priority date: “previous, existing, pre-existing, valid, vested and senior water rights.” and amount of surface and groundwater connected, not separate.  

The appropriation date of a water right is the earliest date on which the applicant can demonstrate the initiation of the appropriation, and applies to surface and groundwater (conjunctive use) tributary to a surface stream.

*surface water and groundwater are connected.

*Allotment Quantity: Assume three water-users exist on a stream system with adjudicated water rights totaling 5 cfs (cubic feet per second). The user with the earliest priority date has a decree for 2 cfs, the second priority has a decree for 2 cfs, and the third priority right has a decree for 1 cfs of water. When the stream is carrying 5 cfs of water or more, all of the rights on this stream can be fulfilled. However, if the stream is carrying only 3 cfs of water, its priority number 3 will not receive any water, with priority number 2 receiving only half of its 2 cfs right. Priority number 1 will receive its full amount of 2 cfs under this scenario.

This process of allocating water to various water users is traditionally referred to as "Water Rights Administration," and is the responsibility of the Division of Water Resources.

ALERT! FARMER/IRRIGATED NEBRASKA FRIENDS

For all my farmer/irrigated Nebraska friends or those who rely on farm related business; Call and email your state Senator to shut down LB 1022 introduced by Sen. Schumacher of Columbus; a disaster for irrigation.  By Jeremy Cohen 

Dear Sen. Schumacher,

I am writing to voice my strong opposition to LB1022. This Bill if, enacted, would completely shut down irrigation in Western Nebraska and devastate its economy. You wouldn’t need tax revenue for rural schools in many counties whose economies are dependent upon irrigated crops, feedlots and ethanol plants, as the gross and net income would decline precipitously and people would all have to move to the city. You would be indirectly killing many jobs at elevators, farms, fertilizer plants, rural cooperative electric organizations and agricultural implement dealers.

Do the math.
1. There is hereby imposed a tax upon the use of water to irrigate agricultural land and horticultural land. The tax shall be equal to one cent for every ten gallons of water pumped from a covered water well and shall be paid by the owner of the agricultural land and horticultural land being irrigated.

One center pivot irrigating 130 acres in Western Nebraska might average 12 inches of water per acre per year, or 130 acre feet of water. There are 325,851 gallons in an acre foot, so 130 x 325,851 would equal approximately 42.36 million gallons used on an average irrigated pivot quarter section of ground. So, your bill proposes to tax 1/10th of that, or 4.23 million gallons at 1 cent. So 4,236,0000 x $0.01 tax =$42,360. That’s more than 70% of the average gross production of corn at 200 bu per acre at $3 per bu. (An acre foot is the amount of water to cover one acre with one foot of water (that’s 12 inches)).

The property taxes currently on that same quarter of ground are about $5000 plus about $1300 in Occupation tax. There is nothing in your bill about cutting the Occupation Tax, so even if the land tax went down to $700 an acre as dryland, your bill would increase taxes on an irrigated quarter by $42,360 - $4,300= $38,060. That’s 63 cents per bushel of corn. Farming at $3 corn is already a losing proposition. No feedlot or ethanol plant is going to buy corn at 63 cents above market. I would have no choice but to shut down irrigation entirely and my farm tenant and all of his employees would be out of work and likely facing bankruptcy. The local school district would lose much of its tax revenue as I’d predict almost all irrigation would shut down and be taxed instead at dryland rates.

Perhaps it would make sense if the tax rate were 1 cent per 100 gallons of water as that would result in a small tax cut for the average farmer. Do you really intend for this result or is your math off by one decimal point? If the above is your intended result, you are clearly out of touch with reality. So, if this shuts down irrigation as we know it, what is it you intend to do with the underground water which the State claims it owns? How is the State going to support all the new folks added to the welfare roles in Western Nebraska as the result of your devastation of the economy.

Maybe my math is wrong? If so, please prove it and send me your math that led you to propose this Bill. If I am right and you and your staff made a math error at that level, or don’t understand how much water is used, maybe it’s time to step down from being a representative of this state. There are many other problems with your Bill. I hope that the other Senators will have the good sense to shut it down quickly.

Sincerely, 
Jeremy Cohen 

DO YOU WANT TO KNOW WHERE YOUR FOOD COMES FROM?

R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America "Fighting for the Independent U.S.Cattle Producer"     URGENT R-CALF USA Member Alert To:                  Colorado R-CALF USA Members     From:              Bill Bullard                           Date:               January 25, 2018 Subject: URGENT:  Colorado Legislatures Need Your Calls/Emails Urging Support of the Colorado Beef Bill (HB 1043)   Background:  Colorado cow/calf rancher and State Representative Kimmi Lewis introduced the Colorado Beef Bill (HB 1043) in the Colorado legislature that fills the void created when Congress (the swamp) removed beef from our nation's mandatory country of origin labeling (COOL) law. Chicken, lamb, goat, fish and shellfish, fruits and vegetables and certain nuts are all still required to be labeled under the federal COOL law but the powerful multinational meatpackers churned the swamp causing beef and pork to become outliers as they are no longer required to be labeled.   The Colorado beef bill (HB 1043) fills the void by requiring Colorado grocery stores to place a sign next to beef products that identifies the origins of the beef sold to consumers.  The bill reserves the "Product of the U.S.A." sign only for beef that is born, raised and slaughtered in the United States. If the beef is not exclusively produced in the United States, the sign must state the foreign country(s) from which the beef originated.   The multinational meatpackers and their allies, the NCBA, Colorado Cattlemen's Association, Colorado Livestock Association, and the Colorado Farm Bureau are pulling out all the stops to defeat HB 1043.  These groups do not want consumers to know that they buy cheaper foreign cattle to feed and cheaper foreign beef to resell rather than to buy their inputs from U.S. cattle producers.   These groups know that when consumers are offered a choice, demand for U.S. cattle and U.S. beef will increase and domestic cattle prices will increase.    How do we know that?   When mandatory COOL for beef was fully implemented in 2013, your cattle prices rallied and reached the highest nominal levels in history.  Beef demand also increased, with the beef demand index reaching the highest level in over a decade.  Then, in 2016, the year after COOL for beef was repealed, your cattle prices fell over $60 per cwt (for calves) and beef demand began falling. The live cattle industry lost $13.6 billion in cash receipts during the year after COOL's repeal.   The opponents of (HB 1043) are blasting Colorado legislatures with emails and phone calls and spreading outrageous lies about Colorado's beef bill.  For example, a Colorado Farm Bureau spokesperson sent an email blast stating the bill singles out "beef from pork, poultry and fish."  This misinformed spokesperson doesn't even know that COOL still applies to chicken and fish.  Nevertheless, he and others are purposely scaring Colorado legislators with false information.   HB 1043 is scheduled for a hearing before the Colorado House Agriculture Committee at 1:30 p.m. Mountain Time on Monday, January 29, 2018.  It must pass in the Committee if it is to make it to the floor of the House for a full debate.   Action:  As quickly as you can, please call and email the following Colorado Legislators to urge them to fully support HB 1043 because Colorado consumers deserve to know where their beef is from and Colorado cattle producers deserve to have their high quality USA beef identified in the marketplace.  You may go here to find phone numbers:    Colorado House Ag email addresses jeni.arndt.house@state.co.us 303-866-2917; 970-231-5090 daneya.esgar.house@state.co.us 303-866-2968   jon.becker.house@state.co.us 303-866-3706; 970-768-6500   perrybuck49@gmail.com 303-866-2907; 970-302-4013   marc.catlin.house@state.co.us 303-866-2955   jessie.danielson.house@state.co.us 303-866-5522   chris.hansen.house@state.co.us 303-866-2967   dominique.jackson.house@state.co.us 303-866-3911   kimmi.lewis.house@state.co.us  (Kimmi is the sponsor so she does not need calls or emails)   hugh.mckean.house@state.co.us 303-866-2947   dylan.roberts.house@state.co.us 303-866-2923   lori.saine.house@state.co.us 303-866-2906   donald.valdez.house@state.co.us 303-866-2916   US Beef is Safer Than Foreign Beef! Thanks for your help!  You produce the best beef in the world and under the best of conditions.  You deserve to be rewarded for that! # # #   R-CALF USA (Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America) is the largest producer-only cattle trade association in the United States. It is a national, nonprofit organization dedicated to ensuring the continued profitability and viability of the U.S. cattle industry. For more information, visit www.r-calfusa.com or, call 406-252-2516.     Please consider sharing this with your local paper and/or radio station. R-CALF USA is funded exclusively by membership dues and donations. Please consider giving a donation.  R-CALF USA PO Box 30715 Billings, MT 59107 406-252-2516 | r-calfusa@r-calfusa.com Support R-CALF USA with your online shopping at http://www.iGive.com/r-calfusa and www.amazonsmiles.com and search for USA FREE (United Stockgrowers of America).

R-CALF USA, PO Box 30715, Billings, MT 59107 SafeUnsubscribe™ farm_cowboy@msn.com Forward this email | Update Profile | About our service provider Sent by r-calfusa@r-calfusa.com in collaboration with Try it free today