Category: Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District

Arkansas Valley Super Ditch: A plan to keep cities from picking off farms one by one

A picture named measuringwithweir.jpg

The two congressional town halls in the Arkansas Valley held last week were called to talk about legislation that would allow Aurora to use Fryingpan-Arkansas facilities to move water out of basin. However the Arkansas Valley Super Ditch Company was discussed at length. Here’s a report from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

Super Ditch is needed as a way to keep cities from picking off farms one-by-one to harvest their water, supporters said. Some argued water should be tied to the land and no dry-ups, even temporary, should occur. Farmers countered that without programs like the Super Ditch, there will be more buy-and-dry transfers like the valley has seen in the past. Farmers believe that including Aurora increases the value of water that is marketed, while others contend that the water can be just as successfully marketed within the valley.

The main issue discussed last week centered on whether Super Ditch should be used to move water out of the valley to Aurora – mirroring the purpose of the visits from Reps. Betsy Markey, John Salazar and Ed Perlmutter, all Colorado Democrats…

Gary Barber of the Pikes Peak Regional Water Authority, while arguing for cooperation, said that group signed a memorandum of understanding three years ago to buy water from the Super Ditch. Economic studies for the Super Ditch by the Lower Ark showed El Paso County water users were willing to pay 67 percent more than Aurora for annual purchases of water.

During the town hall meetings, it was also pointed out that Aurora has an existing arrangement with the High Line Canal in Rocky Ford to buy – under a lease agreement that temporarily dries up farm ground – the water it needs. Mark Pifher, director of Aurora water, said Aurora is constrained by weather conditions and the limits of previous agreements on the amount of water it can take from the valley outside the water rights it owns…

Those who wish to market water through the Super Ditch, however, say they ought to be able to deal with whomever they wish, and the valley market alone isn’t big enough…

Heckman was one of many farmers speaking for the Super Ditch. Their stories, shared in the hallways outside the town hall meeting as well as those formally presented, had the same plot: Farmers are an aging group of businessmen who have worked hard to develop the value of their land without realizing the full monetary reward. For irrigated farms, the value of the water is far greater than the land itself. The water is tied to a property right. If their children don’t wish to continue farming, they face a decision on whether to cash out and sell the farm Ñ cities pay top dollar. Marketing strategies like Super Ditch provide a profitable option…

“The Super Ditch gives us a choice,” [Dale] Mauch said. “You wouldn’t have seen so many sales if we’d had something like that in place … Leasing is the only way we can survive.”

There were frequent testimonials from farmers who either sold water rights or temporarily sold their water to Aurora. The High Line Canal lease agreement in 2004-05 saved farms and Aurora made improvements on the canal. Aurora helped Rocky Ford farmers who sold their water rights install drip irrigation systems and let them continue using some of their water for 10 years in order to give the farmers time to find replacement sources. “I can give you the names of 13 shareholders (on the High Line) who the bankers were lining up to sell,” Dan Henrichs, High Line Canal superintendent, said. “Because of the lease, they are still here.”

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Legislation that would authorize Aurora to use Fryingpan-Arkansas facilities to move water out of basin would also fund study of expansion for Turquoise Lake and Lake Pueblo

A picture named turquoiselake.jpg

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The $8 million study of storage in the Arkansas Valley is actually the primary stated purpose of suggested legislation by the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District and Aurora that is meant to settle a federal lawsuit the Lower Ark has filed against the Bureau of Reclamation. “The additional storage space is crucial to Pueblo and the future of this valley,” said Bud O’Hara, division manager for water resources for the Pueblo Board of Water Works at Thursday’s town hall. O’Hara said the proposed legislation also provides water quality monitoring and fosters cooperation among all water users in the valley…

The legislation being proposed now also would allow other users in the Arkansas Valley outside Southeastern’s boundaries – which take in most cities, towns and farmland in tightly defined parts of nine counties – to enter excess-capacity contracts. Those types of contracts also have been issued for years by Reclamation as well. The Southeastern district presently has no beef with either type of contract, said Jim Broderick, executive director. “Those contracts are allowed, at a higher rate than for users within the district,” Broderick explained. The legislation guards against the increase of diversions from the Colorado River basin, but it does not explicitly limit future diversions from the Arkansas River basin. Aurora is limited in how much water it can take in the next 37 years by the 2003-04 agreements. An agreement with the Lower Ark district extend those limits beyond 2046. The proposed federal legislation does not speak to whether other water users could tap into the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project to move water out of the valley – neither authorizing nor expressly prohibiting others outside the basin who may seek excess-capacity contracts. That could leave the issue of where water is moved open to the interpretation by Reclamation, as it has interpreted past acts of Congress in making its rules.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Aurora: Settlement with Lower Ark over long-term contract with Reclamation

A picture named puebloreservoir.jpg

Here’s a recap of last week’s congressional town hall meeting in Rocky Ford, from Adam Goldstein writing for the Aurora Sentinel. From the article:

Those who supported the position that Congress should enact legislation that would facilitate the export of water from the basin and those who argued that such a move would endanger the rights of water holders in the basin’s communities both expressed their positions in a civil public setting. “We had about 30 speakers … Of those 30 speakers, about two-thirds were very favorable toward this settlement that Aurora has reached with the Lower Arkansas,” Perlmutter said. “Nine out of the 30 were opposed, but not adamantly opposed. It was a more positive meeting than I expected.”

Thursday’s meeting in Rocky Ford was the second public forum held in as many days in the region, and saw input from local residents, media representatives and public officials like Perlmutter, D-Colo., Rep. John Salazar, D-Colo., Rep. Betsy Markey, D-Colo., Aurora Mayor Ed Tauer and Aurora Water Director Mark Pifher.

At issue was the role Aurora should play in exporting water out of the Arkansas River Basin. Supporters of legislation that would ease Aurora’s ability to export water from the basin cited potential financial benefits for the area’s farmers, which included maximizing the value of water through the recently formed Super Ditch project.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District: Reeves Brown applies for vacant board seat

A picture named arkansasriverbasin.jpg

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Beulah rancher Reeves Brown has applied for the vacant Pueblo County director’s seat on the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District. Brown is the third applicant for the seat, vacated in April by the resignation of John Singletary, who left the board because he does not agree with its current direction…

Brown and his wife Betsy have a commitment to conservation and preservation of agriculture in the Arkansas Valley. They bought their Beulah ranch in 1981 and believe conservation easements are needed to maintain agriculture in the valley. “The waters of the Arkansas River are critical to the future of valley agriculture and no less so to of the economics of the entire valley,” Brown said in his letter of application to Chief District Judge Dennis Maes. “Walking the line between a water owner’s right to sell to an open market and the broader community’s dependency upon that same water for its economic future, I see as the greatest challenge the valley has presently. . . . My intention as a board member would be to work toward keeping Arkansas River water in the valley within the legal framework of the law.”

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

Arkansas Valley: New irrigation rules on track

A picture named arkbasinditchsystem.jpg

From the Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The state is proposing the rules to ensure that irrigation improvements using surface supplies – sprinklers, ditch lining or pipes – don’t increase consumptive use. If they do, supplies to downstream users within the state and across the Kansas border could be reduced, raising the specter of more legal action over the Arkansas River Compact. The rules would cover improvements made in the Arkansas Valley since 1999, when Kansas and Arkansas reached agreement on historic consumptive use – the amount of water crops consume. The last committee meeting will be at 1 p.m. June 22 at the Pueblo Board of Water Works conference room, [State Engineer Dick Wolfe] said. By then, Kansas will have reviewed the rules a second time, and the state can consider those comments along with the concerns of in-state irrigators…

The state is not relying on the data from 40-50 years ago that was used in the Kansas v. Colorado lawsuit to build the new computer model for changes in consumptive use for surface irrigation improvements, Wolfe said. The state is using data from a lysimeter – a mechanical means of measuring how much water is used to grow a crop – and studying weather patterns to fine-tune the model accepted by both states in the Kansas v. Colorado lawsuit. Wolfe bristled at the notion that the problem is a small one. “Yes, it’s only 1,000 acre-feet now, but we want these rules in place as we move forward so people have certainty,” Wolfe said. “We’re trying to avoid another compact violation, as we have continued to point out.”

The state has proposed two basic ways to account for how water use changes when improvements are added. The first would require farmers to show how they have reduced acreage or are bypassing flows to account for higher consumptive use because of increased efficiency. The second are blanket plans that cover wider areas using models to account for impacts over entire ditch systems or laterals.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District: John Mihelich applies for board vacancy

A picture named arkansasriverbasin.jpg

From the Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

A retired Pueblo stormwater quality inspector has tossed his name into the hat to fill a vacancy on the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District. John Mihelich, who retired last year from the city’s public works department, said he is qualified because of his technical knowledge of drainage project planning and construction. “My work experience and availability to learn could be very useful to the district and would give a reason to my keeping of a Golden Future Frying Pan hanging on the wall for many years,” Mihelich wrote. The frying pan is a souvenir of the fundraising effort that led to the formation of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District and the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

Lawsuit over Aurora long-term contract with Reclamation put on hold for two years

A picture named puebloreservoir.jpg

From the Pueblo Chieftain (Robert Boczkiewicz):

U.S. District Judge Philip Brimmer put on hold for two years a lawsuit challenging the contract. He said a landowners group opposed to it could ask him during the two years to reinstate his consideration of the group’s lawsuit. The judge’s decision was a victory for Aurora, the Lower Arkansas Water Conservancy District and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation…

The two-year stay of Native’s challenge is to give time for Congress to consider approving legislation authorizing the contract. The legislation also would include a plan for funding the proposed Arkansas Valley Conduit municipal water supply project. “If it (the contract) is lawful, they don’t have to go get the legislation,” Native’s attorney, Sarah Klahn, told the judge…

Brimmer, at the end of an hourlong hearing, listed three reasons for granting the stay that the Lower Arkansas District, Aurora and Reclamation had asked for. He said the Native group “has not identified any concrete harm its members will likely suffer.” He also said the public interest is served because the legislation, if approved, would result in “various improvements” that would benefit water users in the valley. The judge’s third reason was that it is more likely Congress will pass the legislation because the district supports it. The district’s attorney, Peter Nichols, told Brimmer, “We believe it’s likely to have the support of (the state’s) entire congressional delegation.”

Native’s attorney, Sarah Klahn, challenged Nichols’ assertion. She told the judge there is no indication Rep. John Salazar, D-5th District, has changed his opposition to part of the legislation. Salazar, whose congressional district includes part of the valley, is a key figure in whether Congress will approve the legislation. Lower Arkansas’ attorney said Salazar, Rep. Betsy Markey, D-4th District, and Rep. Ed Perlmutter, D-7th District, will conduct a hearing in the valley about the proposed legislation. Markey’s congressional district includes the eastern part of the valley. Perlmutter’s district includes Aurora.

Somach, in answer to a question from the judge, said the contract does not result in more water being exported during the two years. He said the amount of water exported will be the same as it has been for the past 23 years under the authority of annual contracts between Aurora and Reclamation. Klahn challenged Somach’s assertion, citing Reclamation records that she said show there will be “a decrease in the amount of water in the river. There will be less water for my clients to divert.”[…]

Brimmer granted the district’s request to drop one of its claims, that the contract violates the federal Water Supply Act of 1958. Klahn said she and her clients “are evaluating our options.” She said they “are disappointed in the decision mostly because the stay will allow Aurora to continue stealing water from the Arkansas Valley.” When Klahn used the term “stealing” during the hearing, Somach objected, saying Aurora is importing valley water only as allowed by state water courts. Klahn, after the hearing, replied, “The contract is going to allow Aurora to take additional water from the valley and we believe the contract is illegal, so we think the term ‘stealing’ is appropriate.”

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Arkansas River Basin: Proponents claim that Aurora long-term contract with Reclamation benefits everyone in the basin

A picture named arkansasriverbasin.jpg

From the Pueblo Chieftain (Robert Boczkeiwicz):

The Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District and Aurora made that argument Tuesday in a new filing in U.S. District Court in Denver. The argument is meant to persuade Judge Philip Brimmer to put on hold for two years a lawsuit that seeks to block the plan. The judge will hear arguments Thursday on a joint request of the district and Aurora to stay the case…

Arkansas Valley Native LLC, a group of four landowners who own water rights in the valley, has asked Brimmer to nullify the contract. The group contends the contract violates federal laws governing the Fry-Ark project and contends implementation of the contract would dry up large amounts of farmland east of Pueblo. Aurora and the district told the judge in Tuesday’s filing the landowners group seeks “to defeat a settlement that benefits virtually everyone in the Arkansas River basin . . . with the alleged exception of their four members and their limited water rights.” Partners in the landowners group are former Southeastern Water Conservancy District President Wally Stealey, former state Rep. Bob Shoemaker of Canon City, Pueblo Chieftain Publisher Bob Rawlings and Wiley banker Frederick Esgar. They oppose putting the case on hold, claiming they will be injured by implementation of the contract. Some other, but not all, proponents of protecting valley water for use in the basin also oppose the contract, but are not litigants in the case to nullify the contract.

The landowners’ group told Brimmer last week the settlement allows the contract to be in effect during the two-year stay and allows the exporting of more water from the Fry-Ark service area than is currently exported. “That will reduce the water supply for water users in the Arkansas Valley . . . and result in injury to vested rights,” including those of the Native group, the four landowners also told the judge in last week’s filing…

The city and district told Brimmer on Tuesday that even if he does not put the case on hold and ultimately decides the contract is null and void, Aurora and the district “will both have an incentive to seek legislation.” They said the district’s incentive will be to seek funding for Arkansas Valley Conduit, which was authorized by the Fry-Ark Act in 1962, but never built, to provide drinking water to municipalities from Pueblo to the Colorado-Kansas stateline. Aurora and the district, told Brimmer the city’s incentive to seek legislation will be “to secure its water supplies.”

Reclamation, in a separate new filing asking the judge to grant the stay, asserts that it “is not illegal, does not attempt to change existing law and is not barred by any existing case law related to approvals of settlement. “Contrary to Arkansas Native’s unsupported assertions . . . the contract is neither against public interests nor on its face” violates either Congress’ Fry-Ark authorizing legislation of the 1960s or the Water Supply Act of 1958, Reclamation contends.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Arkansas Valley Conduit: Financing elusive

A picture named pipeline.jpg

Here’s an update on the process to raise capital to fund the Arkansas Valley Conduit, from David Vickers writing for the La Junta Tribune Democrat. From the article:

Bent County Commissioner Bill Long from Las Animas, who chairs the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District and both the SECWCD’s Arkansas Valley Conduit Committee and the area’s conduit advisory committee, said Thursday that $25 million remains in the Colorado Water Conservation Board’s loan program for the conduit. When the General Assembly faced a budget shortfall of more than $700 million to balance its budget for the coming year, it tapped the CWCB’s loan program for extra funds, including $35 million intended to help finance the conduit project…

A meeting scheduled on April 21 in La Junta was abruptly cancelled when Long and Jim Broderick, the conservancy district’s general manager, were called to Washington, D.C., to speak to congressional representatives about potential federal funding through the Obama Administration’s stimulus package. “That was the real reason we cancelled the meeting,” Long said. “We had to be in Washington that day.” It coincided, however, with the announcement that state legislators would be tapping into the CWCB’s loan program to help balance the budget. Long said the meeting cancellation and the news from the statehouse left some people with the impression that state funding for the project had dried up. “The $25 million is still there and there’s a commitment to replace the balance ($35 million),” Long said…

In the coming week, Long said he expects to meet with members of the SECWCD board of directors who also serve on the district’s conduit committee. His goals for the meeting will be two-fold: to discuss myriad possibilities for federal funding and to re-start the processes needed to access the remaining $25 million in the CWCB loan program. “One thing we have to do before we gain access to the $25 million from the CWCB is put together a memorandum of understanding or an intergovernmental agreement that binds us together in the project and makes sure we know how we will repay the loan,” Long said. Long said the conservation district has been reluctant to ask any of the water users to sign documents until the district can quantify the amount of water each entity will receive from the conduit and the costs per capita they will be charged to pay for its construction. “The Arkansas Valley Conduit Committee itself has spent a year determining how the water east of Pueblo will be divided,” Long said. “The committee has submitted a request to the Southeastern District, which is in the early stages of reviewing it, but that request would pretty much set up the project.” Many of the entities expecting to receive water from the conduit have already begun collecting fees on a per capita basis.

Gaining access to a $25 million loan would give the conduit committee a big jump toward financing the costs for engineering the pipeline and conducting environmental studies that federal agencies will demand before permits will be issued to construct it…

The Southeastern District and Lower Arkansas Water Conservancy District have continued to help pay for costs associated with the project, including detailed feasibility reports and cost analyses. The Lower Arkansas District committed $50,000 this year and similar amounts in previous years. The SECWCD also secured a State and Tribal Assistance Grant for $600,000, which when matched with about $500,000 from the conservancy districts will give the conduit committee enough to continue work like finalizing the route for the conduit.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Aurora long-term storage contract with Reclamation

A picture named puebloreservoir.jpg

From the Pueblo Chieftain (Robert Boczkiewicz):

Arkansas Valley landowners who oppose a plan for exporting water from the valley contend a key claim in a lawsuit opposing the plan will remain regardless of a judge’s pending decision. The landowners group, Arkansas Valley Native LLC, makes that contention in a new filing in U.S. District Court…

As part of the agreement [Between Reclamation and the Lower Arkansas Water Conservancy District], the Lower Arkansas district asked Brimmer to allow it to drop from the lawsuit its claim that the contract violates the 1958 law…

The landowners group’s new filing tells the judge that regardless of whether he allows the district to drop the claim, the same claim will remain in the landowners’ part of the lawsuit. They joined the lawsuit on the same side as the district, but the two plaintiffs now have opposing positions as the result of the district and Aurora agreeing to settle the city’s part of the lawsuit…

They own water rights, not part of the Fry-Ark Project, in the valley. Those landowners allege in their part of the lawsuit they and the public will be injured if the judge does not nullify the contract. The group wants the judge to hold in abeyance the Lower Arkansas district’s request to drop the issue of the 1958 law “until and unless” Brimmer grants a pending request to put the case on hold for two years. The district, Aurora and Reclamation, as part of the settlement agreement, jointly made the recent request to put the case on hold while the district and Aurora try to get Congress to change the law. The Arkansas Valley Native group opposes delaying court action. “This case needs resolution,” the group told the judge. “The court should deny the stay and resolve whether the contract violates the Fry-Ark Act and/or the Water Supply Act of 1958.”

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District: One applicant so far for board vacancy

A picture named arkbasinditchsystem.jpg

From the Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Tom Rusler, a board member of the Bessemer Irrigating Ditch Co., filed his application about one week after [John] Singletary resigned…

The official notice of the vacancy was published Sunday in The Pueblo Chieftain. The appointment will be for the remainder of Singletary’s term, which ends Jan. 1, 2010. Applicants must have lived in Pueblo County for at least one year, own property and be knowledgable in water matters. Deadline for applications is June 2. Applications should be sent to Chief District Judge Dennis Maes…

The district was formed in 2002 by voters in five counties to protect water in the Lower Arkansas Valley.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

May 14 hearing set for suspension of Lower Ark lawsuit against Reclamation

A picture named puebloreservoir.jpg

The Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District sued the Bureau of Reclamation a while back over Reclamation’s long-term storage contract with Aurora. The contract allows Aurora to store water in Lake Pueblo — a facility of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. The Lower Ark claimed that the project did not authorize use of facilities to move water out of basin. Aurora was allowed to join the lawsuit along with Reclamation. Earlier this year Aurora and the Lower Ark reached an agreement that led to the Lower Ark asking for a time out in the lawsuit with Reclamation. Here’s a report from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

U.S. District Judge Philip Brimmer set the hearing at the request of the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District, Aurora and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation…

Aurora and the district last month agreed to delay court action on the lawsuit for two years while they try to get Congress to change the law to allow Aurora to use the project to move water out of the valley. In the agreement, Aurora also agreed to pay $2 million for Lower Ark district projects like the Super Ditch and Fountain Creek, to participate in the Super Ditch program, to support legislation for the Arkansas Valley Conduit and to allow the Lower Ark district to buy its way into future Aurora reservoirs or projects in the valley. The district board approved the settlement with little public discussion, saying the success of the Super Ditch and conduit outweighed the damage to the valley from the export of water.

Arkansas Valley Native LLC., landowners in the valley, earlier intervened in the lawsuit in support of the district’s original opposition to the contract. Their attorney said earlier this month the group opposes putting the case on hold. “We need to settle the question of whether it’s legal to use the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project to move water out of the valley,” said attorney Sarah Klahn. Partners in the landowners group are former Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District President Wally Stealey, former state Rep. Bob Shoemaker of Canon City, Pueblo Chieftain Publisher Bob Rawlings and Wiley banker Frederick Esgar.

The judge, in setting the hearing, suspended soon-approaching deadlines for submission of written arguments on the merits of the lawsuit. If Brimmer agrees to issue a stay putting the case on hold for two years, he would not need the arguments as soon as previously scheduled.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District: John Singletary resigns from board

A picture named lowerarkansasriver.jpg

From the Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

John Singletary, 64, turned in his resignation last week. “The main reason is that the board is moving in a direction that I cannot comfortably support,” Singletary said Thursday. The district will advertise for a replacement, who will be appointed by Pueblo District Judge Dennis Maes.

Singletary, who helped circulate the petitions to form the district in 2002, said he was torn by the decision. He praised the current board members and staff of the district and said the Lower Ark has accomplished many good things while he served on the board. But the board’s approval in March of a settlement agreement with Aurora in the 2007 court case against the Bureau of Reclamation for issuing a 40-year contract for storage and exchange was premature, in Singletary’s estimation.

Lower Ark requests 2 year stay in lawsuit with Reclamation over Aurora long-term contract

A picture named fryingpanarkansasproject.jpg

Here’s an update on the lawsuit filed by the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District over Reclamation’s long-term storage contract with Aurora, from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

The Lower Ark district, Aurora and Reclamation Wednesday jointly asked federal Judge Philip A. Brimmer for a two-year stay in Lower Ark’s lawsuit against the Bureau of Reclamation over contracts to Aurora. The stay is part of a March 18 agreement between the Lower Ark and Aurora which could settle the case if federal law is changed to allow Aurora to use the Fry-Ark Project to move water out of the valley.

Arkansas Valley Native, a group of four water rights owners, opposes the delay. Members of the group are Pueblo Chieftain Publisher Bob Rawlings, former state lawmaker Bob Shoemaker of Canon City, former Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District President Wally Stealey and Wiley banker Frederick Esgar. They entered the case on the Lower Ark’s side, claiming that Fryingpan-Arkansas Project water cannot be used to move water out of the valley under the federal contract.

he Lower Ark-Aurora agreement includes a provision to try to change federal law to allow Aurora, and Aurora only, to move water out of the basin using Fry-Ark facilities. That would remove the central point of the lawsuit. Aurora has used annual excess-capacity contracts since 1986 to move water out of the valley through Lake Pueblo, Turquoise Lake and Twin Lakes, all Fry-Ark reservoirs. The Southeastern district questioned the contracts in 1986 and again in 2003, when it reached its own agreement to allow Aurora to use the Fry-Ark Project. The 2003 agreement binds the district to seek federal legislation to legalize Aurora’s contracts, which it tried to do in now-stalled Preferred Storage Options Plan legislation. The Southeastern board Thursday learned negotiations on the Aurora legislation will begin again in the near future among nine parties who broke off talks when the lawsuit was filed in late 2007. The Pueblo City Council Monday voted to affirm its support of the Aurora legislation.

Reclamation’s position in the 1986 and 2003 disputes over the contract was that it already has the authority to lease excess-capacity storage to Aurora and other users outside the Southeastern district’s boundaries. The district includes parts of nine counties, but not all of the area in the Arkansas Valley.

Aurora, Southeastern and Lower Ark representatives lobbied members of Congress recently on the proposed legislation. Rep. John Salazar, D-Colorado, said he opposes the legislation suggested in the Lower Ark-Aurora agreement. Sens. Mark Udall and Michael Bennet, both Democrats, say they are open to discussion, but want to protect the Arkansas Valley’s interests. In 2007, Reclamation issued a 40-year contract to Aurora for both storage and exchange at Lake Pueblo. Aurora has an account for 10,000 acre-feet and its water would be the first to spill if project water used the entire capacity. Part of PSOP would study enlarging Lake Pueblo, which now can store 257,000 acre-feet of water, while reserving space for flood protection.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Lower Ark farmers criticize Chieftain editorial

A picture named arkbasinditchsystem.jpg

An editorial that ran in Sunday’s Pueblo Chieftain caused a flash flood of negative reactions from downstream of Pueblo, according to a report from Chris Woodka writing for the…umm…Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

“If Bob Rawlings had asked me, he wouldn’t be making all those dumb statements,” said Leroy Mauch, a Lamar farmer who sits on the Lower Ark board. Rawlings is the publisher of The Chieftain. Mauch’s comment came after farmers who are members of Super Ditch told the board an editorial Sunday unfairly characterized how the ditch operates and what the effects of future agreements with Aurora would be. They also told the board they agreed with the Aurora deal, which limits how Aurora will lease water in years to come. The Lower Ark district sued Reclamation in 2007 over a contract that allows Aurora to move water out of the Arkansas Valley…

Last month, Aurora and the Lower Ark agreed to support a two-year stay while they ask Congress to approve Aurora’s use of the Fry-Ark Project, the central point of dispute in the case. The Lower Ark also helped form the Super Ditch, a water leasing corporation formed by water rights owners on seven canal systems, last year. Super Ditch figures heavily in the lawsuit agreement.

“It’s disturbing to me that we are accused of selling the water. We never suggested we would be selling the water,” said John Schweizer, Super Ditch president and a Rocky Ford farmer. “The Pueblo Board of Water Works can buy Bessemer Ditch water and it’s OK, but not if anyone else wants to lease water. It’s not fair.”

“(Rawlings) says he’s a fan of the Arkansas Valley, but not if it helps farmers east of Pueblo? He contradicts himself,” said Dale Mauch, a Lamar farmer. “The Super Ditch was formed to protect the water. The alternative is buy-and-dry. If we don’t have the Super Ditch, that’s what’s going to happen.”

“(The editorial) makes it sound like in a drought we would be drying up 100 percent of the valley. Only a very small percent of the land would be taken out,” said Fred Heckman, a McClave farmer. “It’s missing the economic benefit of leasing water.”[…]

In the past month, some shareholders of the Bessemer Ditch have joined others from the Catlin, Fort Lyon, High Line, Holbrook, Otero and Oxford canals in Super Ditch.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here, here, here, here and here.

Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District purchasing shares of the Larkspur Ditch

A picture named cotransmountaindiversions.jpg

From the Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka): “The ditch diverts water from the Gunnison River into the Arkansas River basin and was purchased by the Catlin Canal in 1943. It is expected to produce up to 500 acre-feet of imported water this year, which will be leased by the district to water users in the valley. The Lower Ark board voted in February to exercise its option to purchase shares under an agreement with the Catlin Canal. The district has maintained the ditch since 2004, increasing its productivity. About 70 percent of Catlin shareholders said they wanted to sell their Larkspur shares in a December survey. As of Monday, about 130 shareholders had lined up to sell, and offers will be taken on a first-come, first-served basis, said Bill Hancock, Lower Ark conservation program manager. The Lower Ark is paying about $70 per share and expects to spend up to $500,000 this year for Larkspur purchases. Next year, it will spend up to $500,000 more to purchase the entire ditch, if possible.”