Arkansas Valley Super Ditch Company files exchange case to enable leasing of water to municipalities

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The application would cover exchanges of water from points along a 75-mile reach of the Arkansas River from Pueblo Dam to the Fort Lyon Canal headgate, and would allow shareholders from seven canal companies to move water into Lake Pueblo, where it could be moved into municipal water systems. “We figured it was time to file,” said John Schweizer, Super Ditch president. “We can’t do much until we get this done. There are still a lot of other things to get done as well.”

The exchanges are needed in order to store water so the users can move it into their systems, because there is no other way to move the water upstream from its historic use. The application names Colorado Springs, Aurora and the Pikes Peak Regional Water Authority as potential customers. “Adjudication of changes in the type and place of use of the water rights to be used for substitution and exchange is not a purpose of and not requested in this application,” said Peter Nichols, Super Ditch attorney. “The applicants anticipate that they will file one or more applications in the future to change the types and place of use and to quantify the consumptive use.” Right now, the only agreement the Super Ditch board has reached to sell water is with the Pikes Peak group — Fountain, Cherokee, Donala, Monument, Palmer Lake, Triview, Woodmen Hills and Woodmoor water providers in El Paso County. Deliveries of up to 2,000 acre-feet at $500 per acre-foot could begin as soon as 2011 under the agreement…

The application claims 58,000 acre-feet of exchanges — about twice Pueblo’s annual potable water use — but acknowledges there is probably not the capacity in the Arkansas River to take advantage of them all. The exchanges would make use of structures — including at least one reservoir that has not been built — which are not owned by the individual irrigators who would be making the leases. “Applicants will operate the exchanges when there is exchange potential available,” the application stated. “Applicants may operate exchanges continuously for a few hours or days whenever exchange potential is available, which will generally be during spring runoff and following major precipitation events.” There are also release points named in the application such as Lake Meredith or Stonewall Springs on the Excelsior Ditch where water could be released to satisfy the water rights of downstream users…

The 58,000 acre-feet equals the maximum historical diversion of every canal, including the Fort Lyon storage canal, and the “reasonably anticipated demands” of those buying the water, according to the filing. “The claimed exchange rates will allow all shareholders of all Lower (Arkansas) Valley ditches an equal opportunity to voluntarily lease their water,” the application stated.

More Super Ditch coverage here and here.

Cracks in the Pikes Peak Regional Water Authority?

From The Tri-Lakes Tribune (Nicole Chillino):

At the group’s Jan. 20 meeting, Cherokee Metropolitan District general manager Kip Petersen said Woodmoor Water and Sanitation District’s filing for an exchange plan for water in the Lower Arkansas Valley and a letter sent to Aaron Million expressing interest in his project came as surprises to him. Million, a Colorado entrepreneur, is working on a privately studied, built and funded project to pipe water from the Flaming Gorge Reservoir in Utah and Wyoming to areas along the Front Range. The exchange plan filing came as a surprise to several members of the authority and some thought it could hurt the group’s negotiations with projects it is looking at to potentially provide the area with renewable water. “I’m pretty sure that’s hurt our credibility with the Super Ditch people,” Petersen said.

More Pikes Peak Regional Water Authority coverage here.

Arkansas Valley: Woodmoor Water and Sanitation shopping for water rights

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

“We’re talking to a number of potential sellers in the Rocky Ford High Line and Holbrook systems,” said Jessie Shaffer, manager of the Woodmoor Water and Sanitation District. On Dec. 30, the district filed in Division 2 Water Court for an exchange decree to use water from the Lower Arkansas Valley to supplement its inventory now fed by wells. “We thought it was prudent to file this year. It’s just the first step in a long round to go,” Shaffer said.

The filing surprised backers of the Arkansas Valley Super Ditch, which has reached agreement with Woodmoor and other El Paso County water users to supply water through a long-term lease. “I thought we were looking at doing everything with regional cooperation,” said Jay Winner, general manager of the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District, which formed Super Ditch in 2008.

The Woodmoor district is looking for its own sources of water, but would consider buying water through a lease like Super Ditch, Shaffer said. “We want to buy water rights, but we’re not opposed to leasing,” he said. The Woodmoor district formed in 1964 and serves about 8,400 people north of Colorado Springs near the Douglas County line The district will be looking for reliable sources of water at an affordable rate it can solely control, according to its Web site. Woodmoor now gets nearly all of its water through 14 wells in the Denver Basin aquifers. It also has surface water rights in the Lake Woodmoor area, used for irrigation or replacement. It has worked with other El Paso water users through the Pikes Peak and El Paso County water authorities. Last year, the district approved a long-term plan that includes using water from the Lower Arkansas Valley to supplement the Denver Basin wells with renewable sources…

In its court filing, Woodmoor identifies water rights on the Holbrook, High Line, Excelsior and other unnamed ditches as potential sources for the exchange. The district does not, however, seek to change or claim any of the water rights at this time…

The district also lists reservoirs on the Holbrook and High Line canals and reservoirs that have not been built on the Excelsior Ditch as potential exchange points. There are also a series of reservoirs along Fountain Creek, some of which have not been built, listed in the court case.

More Arkansas River Basin coverage here.

Arkansas Valley: Highline Ditch shareholders meeting recap

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

High Line shareholders Monday agreed to Aurora’s request for more engineering on the ditch that sold Aurora water in a lease agreement to speed the city’s recovery from the 2002 drought. The decision came after a long day of re-examining the past deal with Aurora, complaints from shareholders that they are not being kept informed and debates about the merits of forming a leasing company vs. joining the Super Ditch. “We want to know if we should begin working on the engineering to move forward to get a permanent water right to lease to Aurora or others,” said Tom Simpson, Aurora engineering supervisor for the Arkansas Valley. “Do the shareholders want to move forward?” About five hours later, shareholders voted to allow Aurora to continue the engineering studies that will make future water deals easier.

Aurora and the High Line Canal jointly filed for an exchange water right in 2005 after a two-year lease program that was deemed successful by all involved. Aurora was able to replenish its badly depleted reservoirs, while High Line farmers had an instant source of income after a couple of tough farming years. The exchange right, however, still would require a substitute water supply plan from the state Division of Water Resources. Aurora wants to get started on a change of use decree in water court because it would save time in the future…

Simpson said the 2008 agreement is merely a framework and does not obligate shareholders. In fact, it benefits High Line by providing a $15,000-$25,000 annual maintenance payment. In the past two years, High Line has taken the payment by leasing water from Aurora for prices of $5-$10 per acre-foot. “We did not intend to say that anyone has to lease to Aurora rather than anyone else,” Simpson said. Aurora also has had preliminary discussions with the board about long-term leases in the future. The city is limited by a 2003 agreement with the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District about how much water it can lease from the Arkansas Valley.

High Line is also exploring forming its own water leasing company, Superintendent Dan Henrichs said, in explaining a $70,000 grant from the Colorado Water Conservation Board. The canal wants to spend $30,000 of that toward setting up a company, and $40,000 to study water quality at the point on the river near its headgate. The idea would be to build a pipeline on land the canal owns on the north side of the river to serve customers in northern El Paso County or the South Platte River basin, Henrichs said. Other ditches could be brought into the plan, which might not materialize for 25 years, Henrichs said…

One board member candidly expressed his dismay over the afternoon’s arguments: “I’m disappointed,” said Vernon John Proctor. “I thought we were going to have a meeting about what was best for the High Line Canal Co., not talk about the Super Ditch and the Lower Ark.”

More coverage of the meeting from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

The biggest immediate problem facing the 87-mile-long ditch in Pueblo and Otero counties includes a stretch of canal that has washed out in recent years. If the canal were to break during irrigation season, it could mean three months without water for 23,000 acres of farmland.

The ditch company also had to take out a loan to build a new caretaker’s home at Boone and spend down reserves to repair another house in Manzanola. Those are the type of routine concerns large ditches traditionally face. But much of Superintendent Dan Henrichs’ time is spent outside the routine jobs, attending regional or state water meetings on behalf of the High Line board. He also is developing a project that eventually could lead to a program to sell water through leases outside the ditch.

In 2008, Henrichs applied for a $325,000 state grant to fund steps that lead to a leasing program, a future pipeline north and water quality studies. The ditch company was awarded $70,000 for part of the studies by the Colorado Water Conservation Board. “The board’s thinking in applying for the grant was maximizing the value of our water,” the board’s president, Stan Fedde, told shareholders who questioned why the canal company was moving in that direction…

Many farmers are older, and may be looking to retire. Selling water at higher prices is a way to pay off debts or may be the closest thing they have to a 401(k) plan. That’s played out in different ways throughout the valley in the past few years:

Most of the remaining shares on the Rocky Ford Ditch were sold to Aurora, which bought half of the ditch in the 1980s. Aurora and Colorado Springs bought the vast majority of the Colorado Canal in the 1980s as well.
The Fort Lyon Canal agreed to allow High Plains A&M (now Pure Cycle) to move water from the canal as long as it was done in rotation. High Plains bought about 20 percent of the ditch.
Nearly half of farms on the Amity Canal were purchased by the Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association in order to use the water in future power projects.
The Pueblo Board of Water Works bought 27 percent of shares on the Bessemer Ditch for future water use.

The High Line was faced with the same pressures during the drought and many shareholders were looking at selling. Instead, they held on to their water rights by selling water to Aurora under a lease agreement…

The arrangement with Aurora has had other benefits for the ditch, other than an infusion of cash that paid down debt, bought new equipment and allowed repairs on farms. Aurora improved structures on the ditch and built an augmentation station that will allow future leases. Henrichs pointed out that Aurora has helped High Line by providing crews to burn ditches when weeds became a problem. Shareholders Monday also recognized the value of Aurora’s engineering studies of the canal, voting to give the city permission to develop more studies toward a 2005 exchange case and Aurora’s plans for an upcoming water court case to change the use of High Line water. The Aurora lease agreement also opened the door for other cooperative ventures. The High Line wants to draw in other canals, at the ditch-board level, to sell water. Meanwhile, the Super Ditch has formed with shareholders from seven canals and an agreement in hand to enter a long-term lease with Pikes Peak Regional Water Authority in 2011.

More Arkansas River Basin coverage here.

Arkansas Valley Super Ditch announces plans to sell water to districts in El Paso County in 2011

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

A lease agreement to provide 2,000 acre-feet of water annually for $500 an acre-foot (325,851 gallons) to the Pikes Peak Regional Water Authority was announced Wednesday at the monthly meeting of the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District by John Schweizer, a Rocky Ford farmer who is president of the Super Ditch…

“We do not have a signed lease, but we are making excellent progress,” said Gary Barber, agent for the Pikes Peak group. He said chances of a contract are good, if all of the boards of the El Paso County water districts approve the deal. The details of which farmers will participate in the deal, how dried-up land will be accounted for, how water will be moved to the communities that are purchasing it and other technical matters have yet to be worked out…

The Lower Ark board, which supported the formation voted unanimously Wednesday to allow water attorney Peter Nichols to file a change of use case for the Super Ditch. Until that change is approved in Division 2 Water Court, the lease would be administered under a Substitute Water Supply Plan by the Division of Water Resources, Nichols said. Division Engineer Steve Witte said the plan would be similar to one used to regulate the lease deal between the High Line Canal and Aurora in 2004-05…

The timing and location of flows to augment the Arkansas River will depend on where water is taken from under the Super Ditch lease, Witte said. Nichols said the amount of water leased to the Pikes Peak group could increase to up to 8,000 acre-feet annually over the next 20 years. “The numbers will increase as we prove the ability to move the water,” said Jay Winner, executive director of the Lower Ark district.

One big problem will be moving the water to El Paso County. That has not stopped El Paso County from pursuing water rights along the Arkansas River, however. Fountain and Widefield have purchased a ranch in Custer County for its water rights, while Donala bought a Lake County ranch water rights. “We will see a working model of how the water will be moved in January,” Barber said. Most of the Pikes Peak group is located in Northern El Paso County, outside of Colorado Springs, which controls most of the pipelines leading from the Arkansas River. Colorado Springs has discussed using Southern Delivery System capacity to assist the other communities, but no decisions have been made and SDS is at least seven years from completion. One Pikes Peak participant, Fountain, has a share of the Fountain Valley Conduit from Lake Pueblo, however and could use the excess capacity to bring water into the community. Fountain also has the most urgent need because of its rapid growth in recent years.

More coverage from Dave Vickers writing for the La Junta Tribune-Democrat. From the article:

The deal calls for PPWA to pay $500 per share to lease the water from shareholders of the Bessemer Ditch, Highline Canal Co., Oxford Ditch, Catlin Canal, Otero Ditch, Holbrook Canal and Fort Lyon Canal.

The seven entities in the PPRWA that want access to the farmers’ water include Academy Water and Sanitation District, Cherokee Metropolitan District, Donala Water and Sanitation District, Triview Metropolitan District, The Town of Monument, the Town of Palmer Lake and Woodmoor Water and Sanitation District. All are in northern El Paso County. Some, including Cherokee Metropolitan District, have been battling to preserve their rights and struggling to obtain more water because the aquifers that currently supply their members are drying up…

As members of the Super Ditch, shareholders from the seven canals are not contractually tied to any deal. The Super Ditch, incorporated last year as a private company, was developed by farmers who have searched for ways through the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District to market their water in a way that would avoid what happened in Crowley County. Colorado Springs and Aurora purchased water rights to the Colorado Canal and Rocky Ford Ditch in the 1980s and 1990s, then exchanged those rights upstream so they could transport the water to their cities. In the process about 70,000 acres of former farm land was dried up. Schweizer said that perhaps as much as 25 percent to 30 percent of the land under the seven ditches would be without water eventually, but only during years when the seven El Paso County entities need water to overcome shortages there. “It would probably be done with rotational fallowing,” Schweizer said. “Some years none of the land would be dried, some years, like 2002 and 2003 (when severe drought fell upon Colorado), more land could be fallowed.” Although the leasing and fallowing program is scheduled to start in 2011, Schweizer said most Super Ditch members believe it will take at least that long to “work the kinks out and get the program approved in water court.”

Colorado Springs Utilities has been working on a second pipeline, called the Southern Delivery System, which recently was approved by both federal officials and officials from Pueblo County, El Paso County and the cities of Pueblo and Colorado Springs. The SDS project is intended to meet the drinking water needs of the Colorado Springs metropolitan area past the year 2040. Officials from CSU have said in the past they are open to use of SDS by other entities, including Super Ditch, that could use excess delivery capacity SDS might provide. “Some of the little communities have engineered their own plans for a pipeline from Pueblo Reservoir, but the cost of it was out of their reach,” Schweizer said. “They believe it would be better to go with SDS, at least at first. I know they would like to have a permanent place for getting water from that pipeline when it’s built. “A whole lot will depend on SDS and whether Colorado Springs allows it to be used to transport water for other water users,” he said.

More Super Ditch coverage here and here.

Arkansas Valley: Where is the tipping point for farm communities as farms are dried up?

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District Wednesday voted to help find the answer by folding the task into its existing research on the Arkansas Valley Super Ditch…

The Colorado Water Conservation Board already is funding research by the Lower Ark district in connection with the Super Ditch, a land-fallowing, water-leasing program that is seen as a possible answer to traditional buy-and-dry. The idea of the tipping point came out of a recent meeting of the Interbasin Compact Committee, looking at ways to share the state’s water in the future.

Implement dealers, farm supply stores and retail stores suffer as water leaves farming communities, but no one has determined a threshold. The IBCC would like to plug that sort of information into its model that looks at balancing various water supply strategies. “No one has done this before,” Nichols said. “In the past, you got models that told you nothing.”

More Colorado Water coverage here.

Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District budget meeting December 14

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District will have a public hearing on a $2.76 million budget for 2010 at 10 a.m. Dec. 14 at its office, 801 Swink Ave., Rocky Ford. The district collects a 1.5-mill tax on property…

The Lower Ark’s draft budget includes $1.18 million for water rights acquisition, $529,000 for administrative expenses, $400,000 for assistance to other entities, $180,000 for legal services and $150,000 for the Fountain Creek study. Legal fees are projected to be about $40,000 less in 2010, while most of the other large expenses are close to this year’s projections.

More Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District coverage here.

Interior Secretary Salazar appoints Deanna Archuleta to work ‘full-time’ on Southern Delivery System mitigation requirements

Here’s a recap of yesterday’s meeting on water issues in Pueblo hosted by Ken Salazar, from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

Deanna Archuleta, deputy assistant secretary for water and science, will work “full-time” on the issue, Salazar said at a water issues summit in Pueblo…

Salazar called Fountain Creek a “shared resource” that is important to Colorado Springs and Pueblo, as well as the downstream farms and cities. As a U.S. senator, Salazar urged the Fountain Creek Vision Task Force to make the creek a “crown jewel” and he applauded the task force and state lawmakers for making the Fountain Creek Flood Control and Greenway District a reality. As secretary of the Interior, Salazar said he now has the authority to make sure the promises made by Colorado Springs to win approval for building the Southern Delivery System from Pueblo Dam are fulfilled. “Deanna Archuleta will help to identify the resources we need to get this done,” Salazar said. “I’m looking forward to working on this project,” Archuleta said after the meeting. “There has been exceptional collaboration and phenomenal work so far on this. It really is precedent-setting.” Salazar said Archuleta will lead a team directly inside the secretary of Interior’s office that includes Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Mike Connor…

Salazar voiced strong support for the Arkansas Valley Conduit, a $300 million project authorized by Congress this year that would build a drinking water line from Pueblo Dam to Lamar and Eads. “I am 100 percent behind getting the Arkansas Valley Conduit built,” Salazar said. “I will look at our budget to see if there is any money we can put into it. Unless we get this process moving, we are not going to get it done.”[…]

Secretary Salazar also said the “right kind of limits” on taking water from the Arkansas River basin have to be found before federal legislation is crafted to allow Aurora to use the Fry-Ark Project. “It’s not going to happen unless my big brother’s (Rep. Salazar’s) concerns can be satisfied,” he said.

Here’s a look at U.S. Representive John Salazar’s views on legislation that would allow Aurora to benefit from Fryingpan-Arkansas facilities, from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

No federal legislation to allow Aurora to use the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project will pass unless U.S. Rep. John Salazar is part of the discussion on how that legislation is drafted. The Colorado Democrat made that clear Friday in his closing remarks at a water summit he and his brother, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, hosted in Pueblo. “I’ve always been one to seek the middle ground on issues, but I’m adamant on agriculture,” Rep. Salazar said. “I want to make sure we don’t destroy one economy to make another.”[…]

In March, the Lower Ark and Aurora agreed to work for a change in federal legislation that would legitimize Aurora’s use of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. They later obtained a stay in the Lower Ark’s lawsuit against the Bureau of Reclamation, which in 2007 issued a 40-year storage and exchange contract for excess capacity in Lake Pueblo. “We believe these issues can be solved and we’re working to solve them,” Aurora Mayor Ed Tauer said.

There was no mistaking Rep. Salazar’s parting words, however. “I don’t like to be excluded when legislation is proposed. I want to be part of that discussion,” Salazar said.

More Arkansas Basin coverage here, Arkansas Valley Conduit coverage here and here, Super Ditch coverage here and here, Fryingpan-Arkansas Project coverage here and here.

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

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.

Gary Barber: Aurora is the brother-in-law you wish your sister had never married

Here’s a recap of this week’s town hall meeting with U.S. Representatives John Salazar and Ed Perlmutter in Rocky Ford, from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

“Listening to everything that’s been said . . . Aurora is the brother-in-law you wish your sister had never married,” said Gary Barber of the Pikes Peak Regional Water Authority. “But he does the dishes at Thanksgiving, so you learn to live with him.” Barber was speaking to Reps. John Salazar and Ed Perlmutter, both Colorado Democrats, at a town hall meeting on the possibility of changing federal legislation to allow Aurora to use the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project to move water out of the Arkansas Valley…

The meeting brought out arguments on both sides centering on the basic question of whether Aurora is needed in the Arkansas Valley to make big projects like the Arkansas Valley Conduit and Super Ditch work. Some contended that Aurora has been a valuable partner, while others objected to removal of water from a high desert valley…

“I was not part of the negotiations, but we’ve been asked to move legislation,” Salazar said. “It’s no secret; I’ve always been a strong opponent of moving any water out of a basin.”[…]

[Pete Moore, chairman of the Lower Ark board] argued that the only way farmers in the valley will realize the full value of their water rights is to bring in outside money by leasing to Aurora. [Bob Rawlings, publisher of The Pueblo Chieftain], both as a party in the lawsuit and through newspaper editorials, has opposed using the Fry-Ark Project to move water to Aurora. Rawlings also argued with Moore over the nature of so-called leases because they are actually sales of water.

Another Lower Ark board member, Pueblo County Commissioner Anthony Nunez, also supported allowing Aurora into the Super Ditch. “If we do not support the idea of the Super Ditch, the farmers will have no choice but to sell to the highest bidder,” Nunez said…

[Gary Barber of the Pikes Peak Regional Water Authority], however, noted El Paso County communities that are in the Arkansas River basin would also like to lease water and signed a memorandum of understanding with the Lower Ark district nearly three years ago agreeing to lease from the Super Ditch. In fact, analysis by the district during formation of the Super Ditch showed El Paso County users were willing to pay a higher price for temporary sales of water, or leases, from the Super Ditch…

Rocky Ford Mayor Matt Holder said his family’s sale of water rights on the Rocky Ford Ditch to Aurora provided the money to save a lumber and supply company that was in danger of closing. Brian Burney said the $1.5 million Aurora paid to help Rocky Ford schools offset ill effects of the sales has been invaluable. High Line Canal Superintendent Dan Henrichs said at least 13 irrigators would have lost their farms were it not for a 2004-05 lease of water from the canal by Colorado Springs and Aurora…

Aurora Mayor Ed Tauer said the agreement would prevent Aurora from acquiring water rights beyond the 37 years left on a previous agreement with other water users. He characterized Aurora’s ability to participate in valley activities like water storage contracts and Super Ditch is a “way forward,” while continued court cases will produce winners and losers. “Let’s go down a different path and see how we can do things together,” Tauer said…

“I do not like to see water separated from the land,” said Betsy Brown, a Beulah rancher. “I would like to see future growth on the Front Range thwarted by not moving water from this basin.”

More coverage from The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The Arkansas Valley Conduit will be built with or without Aurora, U.S. Rep. John Salazar said Thursday. The Colorado 3rd District Democrat said his position on the House Appropriations Committee puts him in good position to shepherd funding for the conduit through Congress. Along with Rep. Betsy Markey, D-Colo., Salazar is backing a $9 million appropriation for the 2010 fiscal year to advance work on the conduit. “That will begin the work that needs to be done,” Salazar said. “These communities after 40 years will finally get built. It’s my No. 1 priority.”[…]

Bill Long, president of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, said the city of Aurora’s ability to obtain long-term leases for water storage and exchange at Lake Pueblo will help greatly in meeting the local cost of the conduit, which is 35 percent under legislation signed into law by President Barack Obama. That amounts to $105 million under current estimates, or $212 million when interest is applied over 50 years. Aurora’s contracts over that period would contribute $75 million toward that cost and other costs of the Fry-Ark Project…

Without the conduit, communities are facing higher costs to treat salinity, radium and uranium that are commonly found in the valley’s wells. May Valley, for instance, serves 500 people and would have to pay $26 million for upgrades suggested by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment in a recent study, Long said. The conduit is the most affordable option for the 42 valley water systems that could benefit, even though its expense is a burden to low-income communities.

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

Arkansas Valley Conduit: Lamar town hall meeting

U.S. Representatives John Salazar and Betsy Markey were howling with the locals in Lamar yesterday. The primary focus was how to get the Arkansas Valley Conduit funded and built and legislation that would allow Aurora to move water out of basin using the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. Here’s a report from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

U.S. Reps. John Salazar and Betsy Markey, both Democrats, said they would continue to work for farmers and the Arkansas Valley Conduit, but were noncommittal on how they would proceed with proposed legislation to allow Aurora to continue to use the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project to move water out of the valley.

“Why do we need this legislation?” Salazar asked at one point, saying that the Bureau of Reclamation already acts as if it has authority to enter a 40-year contract to provide space in Lake Pueblo for Aurora to store water and to exchange it upstream. Colorado water law should protect existing water rights and should not be circumvented by federal legislation, Salazar said. “I’m here because I care and love agriculture. I’m here to keep farmers on the land,” Salazar said. “It will be a sad day in America if we ever depend on another country for our food and fiber.”

Markey said her priority is making sure the Arkansas Valley Conduit is funded. “We’re very close to getting this issue off the ground,” Markey said.

Salazar emphatically agreed. “I can assure you that before I leave office we will build the conduit. We have made it our No. 1 priority,” Salazar said.

Congress has been asked by Aurora and the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District to pass legislation that would authorize Reclamation to enter contracts with Aurora as part of a settlement in a federal lawsuit. The Lower Ark district sued Reclamation in 2007 over the Aurora contract…

Mark Pifher, director of Aurora Water, showed Salazar and Markey a copy of the 1965 contract that linked the Homestake Project, a separate transmountain diversion, with the Fry-Ark Project. Homestake, a project Aurora and Colorado Springs jointly operate, was already in motion when Congress approved the Fry-Ark Project in 1962. “At that time, the federal government saw a need for cooperation,” Pifher said.

Aurora Mayor Ed Tauer said legislation is needed to quell arguments over Aurora’s place in the Arkansas Valley. “We do believe when a federal project is built, it can have other uses so long as you don’t injure the designated users,” Tauer said.

Rawlings said the agreement between Lower Ark and Aurora needlessly ties the conduit to federal approval of legislation to let Aurora use the Fry-Ark Project. “The conduit has already been approved by Congress and should not in any way be tied to Aurora,” Rawlings said.

After the meeting, Jim Broderick, executive director of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, said Aurora’s participation in excess-capacity leases would reduce the burden of local costs for the conduit. Earlier, when federal legislation sought an 80-20 federal cost share, Aurora’s participation was not critical, he said. But the final legislation changed the cost share to 65-35, meaning that Aurora revenues could be key to keeping local costs manageable.

Several area farmers said the potential to lease water to Aurora would be critical to obtaining maximum value for water under the newly formed Super Ditch. “We market our water to the highest beneficial use, whether through crop production, livestock production, vegetable production or leasing to municipalities,” said McClave farmer Fred Heckman. He said the valley would not be dried up through leases, and said leasing the water to cities in the north is preferable to urbanizing rural Colorado…

Prowers County Commissioner Henry Schnabel said water rights owners have the right to sell or lease water, but urged his neighbors to use caution. “The impact to other water users in the valley is very important,” Schnabel said. “There is the possibility of less and less water in the river. I would like to see the system for transfer of water out of the valley, but it has to be done in a cautious and thoughtful manner.

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

Pikes Peak Regional Water Authority: Suite of potential water supply options to choose from

The Pikes Peak Regional Water Authority is discussing their options for a sustainable water supply. They could be customers of any number of projects including, the Super Ditch Companay, a Flaming Gorge Pipeline(either Aaron Million’s or the Colorado-Wyoming Coalition) or Colorado Springs’ proposed Southern Delivery System. Here’s a report from Nicole Chillino writing for The Tri-Lakes Tribune. From the article:

The Pikes Peak Regional Water Authority continued discussions about its options for a future water source and it appears it will be a while before it can determine what its best course will be…Regardless of which project or projects the authority ultimately chooses, it will need to find a place to store the water. The authority has a few options, including the Pueblo Reservoir, but no storage location has been finalized.

Fryingpan-Arkansas Project: Colorado congressional reps to hold town hall meeting over Aurora’s long-term contract with Reclamation

U.S. Representatives Betsy Markey, John Salazar and Ed Perlmutter all plan to be in the Arkansas Valley next week hosting town hall meetings to discuss potential legislation to allow Aurora to continue using the Fryingpan-Arkansas facilities to move water out of basin. Here’s a report from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

U.S. Reps. Betsy Markey and John Salazar will host a town hall meeting at 5 p.m. Wednesday in Room 139 of the Bowman Building at Lamar Community College. Salazar and Rep. Ed Perlmutter will host a second town hall meeting at 10 a.m. Thursday at the Gobin Community Center in Rocky Ford. All three are Democrats…

Aurora has used the Fry-Ark Project to move water out of the valley with one-year contracts since 1986. The Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District protested the practice as illegal up until 2003, when it signed an agreement with Aurora that paid the district $25 million. Southeastern unsuccessfully tried to convince federal lawmakers for the next four years to change federal law to allow Aurora to use the Fry-Ark Project and remains committed to support federal legislation allowing the contract. In March, Salazar said he was caught off-guard by the Lower Ark-Aurora agreement and wanted to hear opinions about any potential legislation from Arkansas Valley residents at town meetings. He indicated he did not support legislation at that time. Markey and Perlmutter have not publicly said where they stand. In April, the Lower Ark and Aurora sent proposed legislation to members of the Colorado congressional delegation that attached the authorization for Aurora to a proposal to study the feasibility of enlarging Lake Pueblo and Turquoise Lake as well as studying other water storage sites in the Arkansas Valley. The legislation also would allow excess-capacity storage contracts to water users in the Arkansas Valley that are not within the boundaries of the Southeastern district. Pueblo City Council voted to support the legislation at an April meeting, saying it preserves flows in Pueblo through 2004 intergovernmental agreements. The excess-capacity contracts are included in separate federal legislation, already signed by President Barack Obama, that would allow the Arkansas Valley Conduit to be built. The agreement also pledges Aurora’s cooperation in the Super Ditch, either as a buyer or seller of water through the land fallowing-lease management program. It also allows the Lower Ark district to buy into future Aurora water storage projects in the Arkansas Valley. Aurora also is committed to pay $2 million for Super Ditch and Fountain Creek studies under the March agreement.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

South Platte, Metro, Arkansas Roundtables: Looking for solutions to the Front Range water supply gap

Here’s a recap of Wednesday’s combined meeting of the South Platte, Metro and Arkansas roundtables, from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

“We’re looking at different scenarios, not just one water future for Colorado,” said Eric Hecox, Interbasin Compact Committee coordinator for the Colorado Water Conservation Board…

Comments to staff from Wednesday’s meeting will help shape the final plan, which will be discussed by the CWCB at a workshop Monday in Pueblo. The meeting will be from 1 to 3 p.m. at the Pueblo Convention Center. The CWCB will have its bi-monthly meeting at the Convention Center Tuesday and Wednesday…

Colorado now is looking at urban conservation strategies like turf replacement, rate structures, leak detection, landscape audits and appliance efficiency as a way to reduce per capita use. The CWCB also is looking at new ways of making agricultural water transfers less damaging to rural economies through grants to water lease-fallowing efforts such as the Super Ditch in the Arkansas Valley. The final leg of the program is to identify how much water Colorado could claim from the Colorado River. The state launched a basin-by-basin study on the Western Slope to determine how much water could be taken while still meeting Colorado’s obligation to downstream states under the 1922 Colorado River Compact. The state also is working to identify which project or projects should be built if the water is moved to the Front Range. There is no consensus among the state’s nine basin roundtables about which project would best fill the need.

Bessemer Ditch shareholders amend bylaws, greasing the gears for sales to Pueblo Board of Water Works (and others)

Here’s an article describing the mood at Monday’s Bessemer Ditch shareholders meeting, from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

In the end, arguments in favor of future sales prevailed over the strong sentiment to preserve a rich agricultural history in Pueblo County. The final vote was, exactly, 12,047.592 shares in favor of selling to 6,471.554 against.

The meeting was tightly run, with former Judge Joe Ulibarri wielding a stern gavel and an outside accounting firm counting the votes. Ulibarri at one point shut down a speaker who had begun railing against sellers. A dozen people spoke, staying within the two-minute limits strictly enforced by Ulibarri. Some offered rebuttals, but there was little verbal animosity of the type that has occasionally flared on the mesa lately.

In order to close voting, accountants and lawyers had to offer assurances that the signed shares which were voted Monday would remain sealed and confidential unless there were a court order to do otherwise. Bessemer board members, some of whom are selling and some who opposed the rules to make the sale easier, were publicly silent. The board as a whole took no position for or against the change.

A policeman was standing watch…

Some facts about the pending sale of the Bessemer Ditch.

– The Pueblo Board of Water Works is buying about 5,000 of the 20,000 shares on the Bessemer Ditch at a price of $10,150 per share. It expects to spend more than $60 million to complete engineering, legal and revegetation work.

– The board has an agreement with the St. Charles Mesa Water District to use the shares it buys first in Bessemer Ditch, then in Pueblo County, as long as it can find users for the water.

– Many of the contracts have agreements to lease water back to farmers for 20 years. The water board does not expect to need the water until about 30 years from now.

– The changes in bylaws do not prohibit sales to others, anywhere in the state. Bessemer takes its water directly from Pueblo Dam, making it difficult for any out-of-basin user to benefit from the water. Aurora, the only out-of-basin user in the Arkansas Valley, cannot buy new shares under a 2003 agreement, but can buy water on a temporary basis through a lease. El Paso County users could use the Southern Delivery System – if it is built from Pueblo Dam – to move water, with proper permit approval, but no arrangements to do that now exist.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Bessemer Ditch: Bylaws changes

Here’s a look at one Bessemer Ditch shareholder’s view on the proposed bylaw changes coming up for a vote soon along with the Pueblo Board of Water Works plans to buy shares, from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

Mike Bartolo is proposing a different path that would keep water rights in the hands of irrigators while guaranteeing Pueblo the ability to use some of the water when it was needed. His idea – which he admits is sketchy – is for the Pueblo Board of Works to buy the development rights shares in the Bessemer Ditch rather than purchasing shares outright. That would ensure that the water would stay in the ditch, while a portion of it would be available to Pueblo as it is needed. “The city would have to dish out less, maybe about $4,000-$5,000 an acre, rather than $10,000 to purchase rights,” Bartolo said. “The grower would retain the rights and the city could lease up to 30 percent when they need it.”[…]

Bartolo is also aware of Pueblo’s track record on past sales of the Booth-Orchard and Twin Lakes that left behind wastelands in Pueblo and Crowley counties and doesn’t trust the Pueblo water board’s promises that the same thing wouldn’t happen on the Bessemer Ditch. “I think the Board of Water Works has failed miserably to understand that they are not buying a chunk of a ditch, but are destroying the autonomy of it,” Bartolo said. “They are destroying the value of the Bessemer Ditch.”[…]

Bartolo is not opposing the right of anyone along the Bessemer Ditch to sell, and said he understands the reasons some of his friends and neighbors want to sell at this time. He believes more time investigating the potential impacts of the sale and the alternatives is needed, however. The Bessemer Ditch has been a target for urban water sales since the 1980s, when other ditches in the valley sold. Because there is not one large block of shares immediately available, as there were on the Rocky Ford Ditch and Colorado Canal, no sales ever materialized. The current sale was born from a failed effort in 2007-08 that happened in a very public way. The second time around, the water board lined up sellers through a broker at a higher price that lured more takers. While some shareholders met in the 1980s to prevent sales at that time, there has been little public discussion in the past 20 years about whether water rights should be sold or what other options are available.

Bartolo recently joined Super Ditch – a land fallowing, water management program – in an effort to share in the research into the value of ditch rights by the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District. He doesn’t know if the idea of selling water while while keeping the water rights through long-term lease contracts is practical, but said the idea needs to be investigated. Bartolo’s own idea is taken from practices used in some conservation easements, where the future development rights are purchased to maintain a property’s character. The price is the difference between the current worth and the value of developing the property – in this case, water rights. “It preserves the rights of guys who have worked hard and want to cash in their chips,” Bartolo said. While he’s pitched the idea to shareholders through a handout at this year’s annual meeting, to the Lower Ark board, to The Pueblo Chieftain editorial board and at an informal meeting with some members of the water board, Bartolo has found few takers so far…

The water board’s proposal amounts to a “pig in a dress,” that would buy and dry farmland, Bartolo said. “They would lease it back for 20 years, but that’s pathetic,” he said. “When it comes time, the water board will make a business decision with the goal of providing cheap water for Pueblo. The water they are leasing to Aurora could generate five to six times the revenue in agriculture. They haven’t been a good partner to the valley.” Not all of the consequences of what could happen to the Bessemer Ditch’s water rights have been explained, Bartolo added.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Bessemer Ditch: Bylaws changes sparking conflict

The Pueblo Board of Water Works is trying to buy shares of the Bessemer Ditch as part of a strategy to lessen the city’s dependence on transmountain water — and to make sure that Pueblo can keep growing of course. The purchase requires changes in the bylaws of the ditch association and that has some of the ditch members alarmed. They’re mounting opposition to the changes according to a report from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

On one end of the [issue] are the Pueblo Board of Water Works, St. Charles Mesa Water District and those who want to sell to the water board. At the other end are numerous small shareholders who say that the 1894 articles of incorporation and bylaws of the ditch company should not be changed. Neighbors and families are in disagreement about what to do, and a historic decision could be made at a special meeting of shareholders at 6 p.m. May 11 at the Pueblo Convention Center.

Both sides have mailed or handed out a flurry of information in preparation of the meeting to try to sway shareholders. As a mutual ditch association, the decision is up to private water rights holders, just like other water transfers in the Arkansas River basin over the past 50 years have been…

The almost 900 shareholders have stakes ranging from just one share to several hundred. The St. Charles water district has about 2,000 of the 20,000 shares on the ditch. The Pueblo water board wants to buy 5,000 shares, mostly for future needs and to keep thirsty cities to the north from raiding the local canal. In order to do that, however, the water board wants clear direction from the Bessemer shareholders that it will be able to use the water in the future. “We will be investing a large sum of money in these shares and we must protect that investment by amending the governing documents to give us the opportunity to move the shares out the ditch when needed in the future,” water board Executive Director Alan Hamel said in a letter to shareholders…

The Pueblo and St. Charles water boards have committed to use the water within Pueblo County, but the possibility of using the water outside the county would remain in the bylaws at the request of the Bessemer Ditch board, in order to maintain maximum value. The water board also has committed to make improvements on the ditch and lease back the water to shareholders, and states its aims in a way that tries to convince non-sellers they would be hurting neighbors by resisting the changes.

“The effect of not approving the changes to the governing documents is that your friends and neighbors who want to sell will not be able to sell their shares to the Board of Water Works, or any other entity that want to use the water outside the ditch,” Hamel stated.
Some of the shareholders of the Bessemer Ditch who want to sell have written their own letter asking for the cooperation of others, arguing that the change of bylaws will increase the value of everyone’s water rights. “If you have interest in leasing your water (perhaps to the Super Ditch) or selling in the future, then you’ll vote for the changes, allowing the water to be moved from the ditch,” the letter states. The letter is endorsed by 27 shareholders, most of whom are reportedly among those with contracts with the water board. They state that the negotiations between the St. Charles and Pueblo water boards have strengthened protections for shareholders who choose not to sell. The changes in the bylaws and articles of incorporation increase the value of water while maintaining the ability to farm and the quantity of water per share, they say, urging support of the changes.

Opponents of the bylaw changes have presented reasons not to change the bylaws for months. An analysis by Mike Bartolo, a small shareholder on the ditch and head of the Colorado State University Ag Research Center at Rocky Ford, claims the price per acre-foot in the current offer is a little more than $5,000 or roughly half of the cost per share, and criticizes the way the Pueblo water board has portrayed the price. Bartolo also urged shareholders to look at leasing as an opportunity and has joined the Super Ditch board on behalf of Bessemer shareholders. Leonard DiTomaso, who with Mike Klun was elected to the Bessemer Ditch board in January on promises to fight for preserving agriculture on the ditch, has been tireless in sending out letters to try to convince shareholders to leave things as they are. “Everyone I talk to, shareholders and non-shareholders, thinks our ditch should live forever,” DiTomaso said. “I agree. People like seeing our green irrigated farms. Most of the farms are well-managed and cared for.”

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

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

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 farmers criticize Chieftain editorial

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.

Ag to urban transfers

Last year a subcommittee of the Arkansas Basin Roundtable presented a report detailing a blueprint for transfers of agricultural water to urban use. Chris Woodka (Pueblo Chieftain) has written a detailed analysis of the model’s application to current projects in the basin, well actually, the non-application of the model to current projects in the basin. From the article:

The model, Considerations for Agriculture to Urban Transfers (pdf), was developed by a committee of the Arkansas Basin Roundtable over two years of meetings…

The roundtable, in its review of the report, was divided on whether it should have “teeth” or remain a voluntary document. Whether the teeth should be the sharp fangs of state enforcement or the grinding molars of county review was also debated. If the document remains voluntary, it could just be a set of quaint dentures on the shelf. At the Colorado Water Congress meeting in January a water project developer – Aaron Million, who wants to bring water from Flaming Gorge Reservoir in Wyoming to the Front Range – asked a water provider who served on the roundtable committee – Wayne Vanderschuere of Colorado Springs Utilities – why the Front Range Water Council had not adopted the document. The council comprises the major importers of Western Slope water, including Denver, Aurora, Colorado Springs, Pueblo, Twin Lakes and the Northern and Southeastern water conservancy districts. Vanderschuere said the report was too preliminary to actually be used…

[Last Wednesday the Arkansas Basin Roundtable]…talked about how to get more water from the Western Slope, how to increase municipal water conservation; how to protect the investment value of ag water rights; how to meet environmental, wildlife and recreation needs; and even why the impacts of SDS on agriculture were not more fully discussed. “We need to put in projects to give alternatives to water rights owners besides a sale,” said Beulah rancher Reeves Brown. All of those questions are addressed in the water transfers document, which was virtually ignored in the discussion…

Gary Barber, chairman of the roundtable and an agent for El Paso County water interests, said the way deals are going forward is like the situation described in the Tragedy of the Commons, a 1968 scientific paper by Garrett Hardin that dealt with population problems. Hardin basically described how unbridled self-interest could destroy a shared resource. “I think what’s happened is that the environmental and recreation communities have entered the conversation, and we have to find an equitable way to satisfy that interest,” Barber said. There are other efforts to incorporate outside interests, even those who may not know they have a stake in the decisions being made today.

John Salazar: I’m not sure I’m happy about this stuff

Part of the settlement announced last week by the Lower Arkansas Valley Conservancy District and Reclamation hinges on authorizing legislation that would allow Aurora to use Fryingpan-Arkansas facilities to move water out of basin. The Lower Ark and Reclamation should have talked to Colorado’s congressional delegation before they struck the deal. Congressman John Salazar is opposed to Aurora moving the water out of basin. Here’s a report from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

At least one lawmaker was caught off-guard by the proposal, and raised doubts about whether he could support such legislation in any form. “It upsets me and maybe gives me just cause to not support any legislation,” U.S. Rep. John Salazar, D-Colo., said Friday. Other lawmakers in the area’s congressional delegation have not yet weighed in on the deal.

Salazar acknowledged that he had not seen the agreement, but he made it clear that Aurora has little say in whether the Arkansas Valley Conduit, a $300 million water supply pipeline for the lower valley, is approved in Congress. Support for the conduit is one piece of the new agreement, but Salazar said it appears the conduit is being “held hostage” by the two groups.

Legislation which should move to the house floor next week has been suggested by the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District and would use excess-capacity revenues – including Aurora’s lease, but with many more leases within the Arkansas Valley – to repay construction costs of the conduit. Salazar said if legislation is introduced, it should be written so that Aurora is not able to take any more water from the valley. “If we continue bleeding the Arkansas basin, it will just be Pueblo and Colorado Springs left,” Salazar said. While the agreement would provide opportunity for the Super Ditch, a corporation formed by farmers with the help of the Lower Ark district to lease water, Salazar said he is concerned about the impact of taking more water out of the river and what that will do to local economies. “I still have concerns with the Super Ditch concept,” Salazar said. “I’m not sure I’m happy about this stuff.”

More coverage from the Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The authorization, which would be only for Aurora and no other out-of-basin water user, has not been introduced in Congress, but Lower Ark and Aurora officials plan to talk to members of Congress about it later this month. The authorization would remove the two key elements of a 2007 federal lawsuit filed against Reclamation by the Lower Ark district that challenges Aurora’s ability to use the Fry-Ark Project because it was not authorized in either the 1962 Fryingpan-Arkansas Act or the 1958 Water Supply Act. “We have not been asked to, and I’m not sure we’d be willing to support that agreement,” Salazar said Thursday. “We were caught off-guard that it was even in the works.”

The agreement is the culmination of four years of on-again, off-again negotiations related to the Preferred Storage Options Plan between Aurora and the Lower Ark that Salazar and his brother, former U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar, helped launch in 2005. Lower Ark attorney Peter Nichols explained Wednesday that talks had broken several times over the four-year period, most recently last June. Talks restarted in January, leading to the agreement approved this week. Any new legislation should not be used to give Aurora more water and the conditions in the agreement unnecessarily link the Arkansas Valley Conduit’s future to Aurora’s ability to move water. “I believe at the very least, there would not be a single drop of more water going to Aurora through this proposed legislation,” Salazar said. “I have serious concerns that there are no conditions in this agreement to stop any more water from leaving the Arkansas Valley.”

Salazar said the Arkansas Valley Conduit would continue to move through Congress as part of the Public Lands Bill that won Senate approval for the second time Thursday. The bill will go back to the House, where it failed for lack of a two-thirds vote last week, and will only need a simple majority to pass…

The Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, sponsors of the Fry-Ark project, the conduit and PSOP, was supportive of the Aurora-Lower Ark agreement during a brief presentation Thursday, and some expressed hope that PSOP might be resurrected as a result. Aurora could pay more than $50 million over 40 years under excess-capacity contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation signed in 2007. The conduit legislation proposes using those revenues, along with other excess-capacity contracts, to repay construction costs of the conduit and other underfunded parts of the Fry-Ark project. District officials have said Aurora’s participation is helpful, but not necessary to make the plan work. The agreement between Aurora and the Lower Ark would put the federal lawsuit on hold for up to two years until legislation could be adopted, at which time, the Lower Ark would move to dismiss the case with prejudice, Nichols said. That means the Lower Ark could not file another lawsuit over the contract.

More coverage from the Pueblo Chieftain (Peter Roper):

The $300 million pipeline project [Arkansas Valley Conduit] that Colorado lawmakers have been prodding through Congress is just one item in a lengthy public lands bill that the Senate approved on a 77-20 vote Thursday. It was the second time since January that the Senate approved the legislation, but the public lands package was rejected in the House just a week ago. That’s not expected to happen a second time. Hoping for fast action, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had brought the bill to a vote on “special consideration” – a procedure that requires a two-thirds majority – and House Republicans, plus some Democrats, stopped the bill by keeping the final tally two votes short of two-thirds. Pelosi has said she will bring the measure back for another vote soon and a simple majority will be all that’s needed. It passing is very likely given the Democratic majority in the House.

More coverage from the Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Last week’s potential settlement of a federal lawsuit about using a project intended to provide more water to the Arkansas River basin to move water from the basin stirs long-standing issues with yet another agreement…

In late 2004, and often since then, the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District ook a hard line opposing the authority of the Bureau of Reclamation to allow Aurora to use the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project to move water out of the valley…

In 2007, after Reclamation approved a 40-year deal for Aurora to store and move water upstream, the Lower Ark dug its heels in and filed a federal lawsuit against Reclamation. The suit was joined by Aurora and Arkansas Valley Native, a group of four influential men who own water rights and also opposed the contract. It was the most rigorous challenge to the deals with Aurora since 1986, when Reclamation began leasing excess-capacity space in Lake Pueblo to the city of 300,000 east of Denver…

With the federal court challenge, however, it became evident there was never clear authority for Aurora’s involvement in the Fry-Ark Project. While Reclamation claimed the authority has always been implicit in federal statutes, the Lower Ark challenged the leases under specific legislation by Congress in 1958 and 1962. The [Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District] was never comfortable with Aurora’s participation in the Fry-Ark Project – which dates back to the beginnings of the Homestake Project in the 1950s – and sought to incorporate formal authority as part of its suggested Preferred Storage Options Plan legislation, which continually failed in Congress.

However, Aurora is able, under the agreement, to buy new water rights in the valley if a new pipeline that would take water out of the valley is built. The Southern Delivery System, still in the permit process, is not counted as a new pipeline under the agreement. The agreement reads: “Should additional delivery systems, which are neither promoted, financed nor used by Aurora, become operational that allow for the delivery of additional agricultural water rights from the mainstem of the Arkansas River for use in other locations, the parties recognize that the competition for agricultural water rights will increase significantly and that it is in the best interests of the owners of such rights to maximize the market for such water.”[…]

While the Lower Ark has spent much of the last five years fighting Aurora, Lower Ark officials believe they may have enlisted an ally in keeping other water interests outside the valley at bay. “We continuously worry about Aurora, but what about Denver and the South Metro District?” asked Jay Winner, general manager of the Lower Ark district. “This agreement with Aurora will help keep other pipelines out of the basin.” Provisions requiring Aurora’s support for studies of past water transfers, water quality in the Arkansas River basin and regional water management are also important to preserving water for the basin, Winner said. Aurora’s support on the conduit legislation is needed to assure the project will continue to move smoothly through Congress and into reality, he added…

Beyond the old fight with Aurora, there are numerous opportunities for partnerships built into the agreement. Besides the water leasing and studies, there are provisions that allow the Lower Ark, primarily on behalf of the Super Ditch, to gain storage space in existing reservoirs like Lake Henry and Lake Meredith in Crowley County, and in future projects like Box Creek Reservoir in Lake County. Aurora will also share the expertise it has gained in its farming programs under the Rocky Ford Ditch – where it worked with farmers to study drip irrigation and alternative cropping – with the rest of the valley. Aurora also committed to working with Crowley County on revegetation. The city revegetated lands under its court decree for shares of the Colorado Canal it purchased in the 1980s. However, over time and especially following the 2002 drought, weeds overcame the dried-up farmland, creating conditions for a tragic brush fire last year. While the negotiations for the current deal occurred out of the public eye – they’ve been going on with staff and lawyers since January, but were not discussed in an open meeting until last week – it’s no secret that Aurora and the Lower Ark have had on-again, off-again talks since 2005…

“We are confident that our agreement with Aurora Water mitigates our concerns and we are pleased to have their financial and technical support for future projects that benefit the Lower Arkansas Valley,” said Pete Moore of Crowley County, who was elected chairman of the Lower Ark board in January.

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

Colorado cities looking for sustainable supplies

Here’s an update on Colorado cities’ quest for sustainable water supplies, from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

While Colorado cities have always grown over nearby ditches as they expanded, they also have looked far and wide for new water sources. Puebloans can observe this in their own backyard as the Pueblo Board of Water Works pursues a quest to buy shares in the Bessemer Ditch. The move is being financed in part by the sale of a faraway mountain ditch purchased in an earlier time as a hedge against water shortage…

In Northern Colorado, the state’s most productive agricultural land has been caught in the cross-hairs of growth, Sean Cronin, water resources manager for Greeley, told the Ditch and Reservoir Co. alliance last week at its annual meeting at the Pueblo Convention Center. “Buy-and-dry is ultimately going to happen, but leases buy us time,” Cronin told the irrigators…

In 2003, Greeley embarked on a water acquisition plan that included buying more shares in nearby ditches, as it had in the early 1990s as a response to raids on ditches by Thornton, Cronin said. The city was successful in obtaining some shares – fewer than it wanted at a higher price. From knocking on the doors of farmers, it also learned two things: Not every farmer wants to sell water, even at more than twice the going rate for ag water. Other cities are knocking on the same doors…

Thornton already had bought shares in area ditches, so Greeley set out to buy shares in the Greeley Loveland Irrigation Co. These would be added to a water system that already included high mountain reservoirs, transmountain water from the Colorado-Big Thompson Project, direct flow rights, 100-year-old conservation plans and shares in local ditches. “It turns out Thornton wasn’t interested in buying the ditch, but we protected the land, and we protected the water,” Cronin said. Greeley paid twice the price for ag shares, spending about $12 million, and increased ownership on the ditch by 30 percent. Greeley now owns about half of the ditch. Since Greeley did not need the water right away, the shares were offered for guaranteed lease back to farmers for 15 years. “Every one of them took it,” Cronin said. Farmers were also given the opportunity to change their minds and buy back the shares. Only one irrigator took that offer, Cronin said. Now, three years after the lease-back option expired, farmers are still able to lease water year-by-year. Most of the money from the leases was plowed back into the local farm economy. People stayed, continued farming and even made improvements to the land. “The sales provided seed money for development,” Cronin said. “In the economic cycle, the money came back to the local economy and the Northern Colorado economy.” Although Greeley didn’t plan it, most of the purchases happened to be at the end of the ditch, so the sales didn’t have a great effect on the operation of the ditch…

In the new round of sales enacted in 2003 – at a time when Greeley was among the fastest-growing urban areas in the nation – the city set out to buy shares in several area ditches. The offer was to be $6,000 per acre-foot, about twice the going rate for ag water. No one was interested in selling at that price. “We had a successful model to replicate,” Cronin said. But things had changed. Using a series of overlay maps in his presentation, Cronin explained how the water available to Greeley had diminished by sales to other Northern Colorado communities, acreage that had become part of conservation reserves or water that could not be easily moved into the city’s water system. “There was not that much to go around,” Cronin said. “What would have sold for $6,000 an acre-foot was being sold for $50,000.” Still, Greeley was able to buy some water for about $7,000 per acre-foot. Like the earlier purchase, it is being leased back. The lease-back period is important because it gives farmers time to ponder their future and the city time to chart its course.

Meanwhile, here’s an update on the Lower Arkansas Valley Super Ditch Company and its efforts to keep water in the valley and on crops, from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

A board member and the attorney for the Arkansas Valley Super Ditch shared their insights last week at the annual meeting of the Ditch and Reservoir Company Alliance, held at the Pueblo Convention Center. Although more than 80 percent of the water in the Arkansas Valley still goes to fields rather than toilets and showers, about 70,000 acres of farm ground has been dried up by water sales in the last 30 years. Another 70,000 acres could be dried up in the next 25 years if business as usual continues…

…shareholders from six of the large canals below Pueblo signed on last year to incorporate the Super Ditch. The ditch has not yet signed a contract to provide water to anyone, but has talked with several potential customers. It faces legal questions, technical obstacles and potential political friction. But a framework has been built by irrigators with a common purpose: getting a fair price for water. “The cities are going to need more and more water. You know they are going to come,” said Mauch, who was president of the Fort Lyon Canal when speculators bought 20,000 acres of farms several years ago. “How are you going to keep farmers in the area? If you take the irrigating water out of Lamar, you take the people out of Lamar.”

The Super Ditch concept is to pool the multitude of water rights of farmers on different ditch systems, allow those who choose to participate to dry up some of their ground on a temporary basis and lease that water to cities, the state or others with a need…

Leases, as opposed to sales, would keep the water in the Arkansas Valley long-term. Several members of the ditch alliance questioned what would would happen to the water at the end of a long-term lease after the cities had come to depend on the supply. “At the end of the lease, you still own the water rights,” Super Ditch attorney Peter Nichols explained. “You don’t have to re-lease it. At the end of the time period, the water goes back to the land.” Nichols said cities do have the power to try to condemn water rights if they choose, but the only case on record, an attempt by Thornton, failed and was politically messy.

Mauch said the Super Ditch gave him a new “crop.” “I’m not looking to sell,” said Mauch, who became interested in finding an alternative use for water after the High Plains buy on the Fort Lyon. “I may not even decide to lease. But leasing is a crop. If you could sell water every year, why would you sell the water right?”[…]

The Super Ditch also has to work with ditch company boards to approve transfers. So far, only two ditches in the valley, the Fort Lyon and the High Line Canal, allow water to be used outside ditch boundaries. The High Line is the only ditch company that actually has completed a lease to cities, with its 2004-05 contract with Aurora and Colorado Springs. At least half of the shareholders on the seven ditches studied by the Lower Ark – Bessemer, Fort Lyon, High Line, Oxford, Otero, Holbrook and Catlin – are interested in becoming a part of Super Ditch, according to a survey late last year, Nichols said. While no one on the Bessemer Ditch signed on when the Super Ditch incorporated last year, Mauch said some shareholders have contacted him during the Board of Water Works current attempt to buy shares on the Bessemer…

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

Share this:
Bluesky
LinkedIn
Facebook
Email
Print
X
Like this:
Like Loading…