From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
Most methods of alternative water transfer listed in a draft state report has real-life examples in the Arkansas River basin. The basin also has served as a proving ground to measure the effects of permanent sales of water rights from farms to cities. The state has funded $1.5 million in studies to look at alternatives to the buy-and-dry deals of the past. Included in those studies were reports that looked at legal and technical issues for the Arkansas Valley Super Ditch by the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District ($349,650) and a similar plan by the High Line Canal to market water ($70,000). Also in the mix was an $80,000 study by Colorado State University to look at the costs of bringing fallowed ground back into production. Reading through the draft report, it’s apparent the Arkansas Valley’s history has textbook examples of new alternatives.
– Interruptible supply agreements, where cities make arrangements to use agricultural water supplies in dry times, were pioneered by Aurora and the High Line Canal in 2004-05.
– Rotational fallowing agreements, which would provide water on a routine basis by drying up some acreage, are being suggested by the Super Ditch.
– Water banks were first tried in the Arkansas Valley in 2003, under the sponsorship of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District. While that pilot program had limited use, the concept is seen as an answer to protecting water supplies against downstream calls in the Colorado River basin.
– Purchase and lease-back agreements are being used by the Pueblo Board of Water Works on the Bessemer Ditch and Tri-State on the Amity Canal. In both cases, the water rights have been purchased, but the water is still being used by farmers.
Another idea being tested under the state grant program is changing irrigation practices to reduce the water needs of crops, either by improved efficiency of irrigation, which would reduce waste of water, or by reducing the actual consumptive use, which could lead to marketable water.
More coverage from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
State water leaders will continue to wrestle with the central question of future water development in 2011: How will water be provided to new residents without sacrificing agriculture? The question has preoccupied the water community for nearly a decade, after the historic drought of 2002 showed water supplies were not sufficient to maintain the current landscape of farms, lawns and wildlife habitat…
Soon after, in 2004, the Colorado Water Conservation Board developed the Statewide Water Supply Initiative that identified how much agricultural water would have to be converted to municipal use to meet the needs of growing urban population…
The Interbasin Compact Committee formed in 2005 to attempt to deliver a framework that would make water transfers less damaging. The 27-member panel was formed by a “grass-roots” process that included representatives from nine basin roundtables. Early last year, the IBCC was charged by Gov. Bill Ritter to accelerate its discussions. Last month, the IBCC delivered its report to Ritter and Gov.-elect John Hickenlooper that looked at solutions beyond simply drying up farms through purchases by urban water users…
Hickenlooper has named John Stulp, a Lamar farmer and rancher who was Ritter’s agriculture commissioner, to head the IBCC as part of his duties as special adviser for water policy. The roundtables will begin considering how that approach could be implemented beginning this month. A summit of roundtables is planned in Denver on March 3 to give all of the 300-or-so roundtable members from throughout the state a chance to comment.
In the meantime, the CWCB is anticipating completion of a series of technical reports. The reports look at updating numbers for municipal water use, alternative ways of using ag water to meet urban demands, agricultural demand and nonconsumptive needs for wildlife, recreation and the environment.
More Arkansas River basin coverage here.