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.
