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

A picture named arkbasinditchsystem.jpg

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 shareholders approve bylaw changes paving way for sales to Pueblo Board of Water Works

A picture named arkbasinditchsystem.jpg

Shareholders in the Bessemer ditch approved changes to the their bylaws which will grease the gears of potential sales — primarily to the Pueblo Board of Water Works. Pueblo is hoping to scale back their reliance on out of basin water. Here’s a report from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

“Now we’ll start cleaning up and closing some contracts,” said Alan Hamel, executive director of the Pueblo water board. “We have some engineering to do, and we’ll be looking at the financing.”

The vote clears the way for the sale of the Columbine Ditch north of Leadville. Next week the water board will attempt to finalize the contract with Ginn Development, which has offered $30.48 million for the ditch for a new ski resort near Minturn. Aurora will have the opportunity to match the offer under a previous agreement.

The water board will spend more than $60 million on the purchase, including payments of $10,150 per share for 5,000 shares. More than 200 people showed up for Monday’s meeting at the Pueblo Convention Center, and about a dozen spoke passionately both in favor and against the bylaw changes.

“I didn’t think we’d get beaten this bad,” said Leonard DiTomaso, a Bessemer board member who organized a campaign to scuttle the rule changes. “I thought we’d win.” Other Bessemer board members at the meeting were also surprised at the wide margin of victory, although those who supported the sale were optimistic the rule changes would pass. The changes to the bylaws and articles of incorporation allow the shareholders of the Bessemer Ditch to use water outside the ditch boundaries for the first time since the ditch was incorporated in 1894. While the Pueblo water board intends to lease water back to farmers on Pueblo County’s largest ditch for at least 20 years, it is now assured it will be able to move water outside the ditch…

The purchase was undertaken partly as a defensive move against other water providers who have made offers on the ditch, and Pueblo may not need the water for 30 years, Hamel added. In response to one complaint, Hamel also said Pueblo water users have conserved water, reducing their per capita consumption by 15 percent since 2002.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Bessemer Ditch: Bylaws changes

A picture named arkbasinditchsystem.jpg

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

A picture named arkbasinditchsystem.jpg

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.

Bessemer Ditch: A look at one farmer who plans to sell his water

A picture named arkbasinditchsystem.jpg

The sale of agricultural water is fraught with emotion. Here’s a look at one farmer that has signed a purchase contract with the Pueblo Board of Water Works for his shares in the Bessemer Ditch, from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Pueblo Board of Water Works and St. Charles Mesa Water District amend agreement

A picture named upperarkansasvalley.jpg

From the Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The latest proposal would allow Bessemer shareholders to sell water to users outside Pueblo County, but would restrict leases of water obtained by the Pueblo and St. Charles water boards…

Pueblo and St. Charles Mesa have agreed to first use water within their service areas in Pueblo County, unless service areas expand beyond county lines. Any water not needed would be leased to remaining shareholders on the Bessemer Ditch. If no leases within the ditch or county are possible, Pueblo and St. Charles Mesa could lease the water anywhere in the Arkansas Valley, but not outside the valley. Other shareholders on the ditch would not be restricted in selling water to anyone outside the county or the valley. In the first draft of proposed changes, use was limited to Pueblo County. The requested change came from the Bessemer Ditch board, Hamel said. “(The amended agreement) commits us to lease back our shares,” said Executive Director Alan Hamel. “This reflects the board’s commitment to agriculture and the economy of Pueblo County.” The board also makes commitments in the St. Charles Mesa agreement that safeguard other shareholders on the ditch, Hamel added…

Bessemer Ditch shareholders will have a special meeting at 6 p.m. May 11 at the Pueblo Convention Center to consider changes in the bylaws and articles of incorporation. The changes made in the proposed bylaws satisfy some of the objections raised by shareholders over an earlier version of by-law changes, but there is still organization opposition to any change in bylaws. Some claimed restricting future sales to Pueblo County would lower the value of Bessemer shares and create a monopoly for the Pueblo and St. Charles Mesa water boards. “We still don’t want to change the bylaws,” said Leonard DiTomaso, who was elected to the Bessemer Ditch board in January along with Mike Klun on promises to oppose sales of water outside the ditch boundaries and support farming on the ditch. “That means forever and ever. What’s this land without water? We really don’t want to concede any points.”

More Coyote Gulch coverage here, 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.

Ag to urban transfers

A picture named rockyfordditch.jpg

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.

Bessemer Ditch postpones vote to change bylaws

A picture named bessermerditch.jpg

From the Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka): “The special meeting of shareholders of the ditch will be at 5 p.m. May 11 at the Pueblo Convention Center, board member Leonard DiTomaso said Friday. DiTomaso, who was elected to the board in January, said he is gathering support to fight changes that would allow water to be used outside the ditch’s boundaries. He farms on the Bessemer and wants water to stay in the ditch for future generations. ‘People on the mesa are on a rampage,’ DiTomaso said. ‘In Colorado, people do have a right to sell water, but we’ll be damaged if they transfer it out.’

“The proposed changes in the bylaws have been substantially altered, mainly at the request of the Bessemer board, said Executive Director Alan Hamel. The meeting was delayed in order to provide shareholders more time to consider the changes, as well as allowing the water board and the St. Charles Mesa Water District board an opportunity to review them. Those boards entered an agreement last month that would allow certain changes in the bylaws…

“The Pueblo water board is looking to buy at least 5,000 shares of the Bessemer Ditch, about 25 percent, at $10,150 per share, but contracts are contingent on obtaining a change of bylaws.”

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Southern Delivery System: Pueblo Board of Water Works approves agreements

A picture named sdspreferredalternative.jpg

The Pueblo Board of Water Works has approved two agreements related to Colorado Springs’ proposed Southern Delivery System. Here’s a report from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain:

The remaining local action on SDS will come if Pueblo County commissioners approve conditions. The commissioners will host a public hearing tonight at 6 p.m. at the Pueblo County Courthouse and review conditions proposed by county staff. The conditions are posted on the county’s Web site.

The Colorado Springs City Council still must approve both the water board agreements and county conditions before SDS would begin. The $1.1 billion project would also need other permits and final approval and contracts from the Bureau of Reclamation before work could begin. The water board agreements would guarantee flows through Pueblo and allow the water board to participate in the proposed North Outlet Works, which Colorado Springs proposes to build at the north outlet, also called the river outlet, on Pueblo Dam…

Each agreement takes the form of a memorandum of understanding, which is a contract that implies those who sign it will take a particular action. The Arkansas River low flow program would establish a pool of water in Lake Pueblo jointly maintained by Colorado Springs and Pueblo. Each would contribute, when the supply is available, 1,500 acre-feet of water that could be released when flows in the Arkansas River drop below 50 cubic feet per second. The agreement would go beyond the current Pueblo flow program, set up in 2004, which curtails exchanges when flows drop below 100 cfs, but not require additional water in the river. Aurora, Fountain and the Southeastern District also participate in that program. Commissioners would require Security and Pueblo West to sign on to the program, along with any future SDS users. Water that is either released or voluntarily not exchanged under either program could be recaptured in the recovery of yield program under the existing and new agreements…

The second SDS agreement approved Tuesday addresses the Pueblo water board’s concerns about the Joint Use Manifold, which is the primary water delivery system for the city. Colorado Springs, in its 2008 proposal for SDS, indicated it wanted initially to use excess capacity in the outlet south of the Arkansas River for its water supply, even though the city paid Pueblo $3 million in 2000 to enlarge its line from the outlet works to accommodate its use by tapping into the line east of the Pueblo Dam. Pueblo, Pueblo West and the Fountain Valley Authority currently use the south outlet. In the future, Pueblo and the Arkansas Valley Conduit would get more capacity. Late last year, however, Colorado Springs said it would prefer to build the North Outlet Works, a new outlet that would supply up to 96 million gallons per day for Colorado Springs, Security, Fountain and Pueblo West. The outlet would also continue to supply water to the river and could be adapted to provide hydroelectric power in the future, according to engineers who worked on the concept. The outlet was tested last week to prove its capacity of about 1,100 cfs. A full run under SDS would use about 147 cfs of that capacity. The new agreement requests engineering cost estimates for Pueblo to gain 20 million-40 million gallons per day capacity from the North Outlet Works.

Pueblo pumps an average of about 25 million gallons per day, with peak days of about 60 million gallons per day. In recent years, since the 2002 drought, pumpage has been declining because customers have adjusted their outdoor watering habits. The water board wants the redundancy in case the Joint Use Manifold is inoperable because of invasive mussels, repairs or other unforeseen events.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here, here and here.

Bessemer Ditch update

A picture named bessermerditch.jpg

Here’s an update on the Pueblo Board of Water Works efforts to buy shares of the Bessemer Ditch, from Chris Woodka writing form the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

The board voted unanimously to enter an intergovernmental agreement with the St. Charles Mesa Water District that would commit both to voting for changes in bylaws and articles of incorporation in order to allow the water board to use shares outside the ditch boundaries. The water board will seek bylaw changes at a meeting of shareholders at 6 p.m. April 20 at the Pueblo Convention Center. Some shareholders are actively opposing the changes which have been suggested. In approving the IGA, the water board pledged to keep the water coming to those who want to stay in farming…

The St. Charles district owns nearly 2,000 shares of the 20,000 shares on Bessemer Ditch. The Pueblo water board is attempting to buy at least 5,000 shares, but has a plan to purchase up to 7,000 under the current offer. The agreement is written so that the water board’s obligations would be decreased if it were successful in purchasing fewer shares. The St. Charles district serves homes on the mesa east of Pueblo, and has been acquiring shares for many years. It has not actively purchased shares in recent years, but requires that shares of water be put into its portfolio when farm ground is converted into subdivisions. The St. Charles board approved the IGA on Feb. 26, and would receive protection for its wells, guarantees of improvements on the Bessemer Ditch and protection of flows at its intake on the Arkansas River under the agreement.

More Coyote Gulch coverage j

Bessemer Ditch update

A picture named bessermerditch.jpg

Here’s a look at the Pueblo Board of Water Works plans for the Bessemer Ditch going forward, from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

The Pueblo Board of Water Works will consider today an agreement with the St. Charles Mesa Water District aimed at protecting their respective interests if the water board is successful in purchasing shares of the Bessemer Ditch. The a- greement would help the Pueblo water board move proposed changes in rules that govern how Bessemer Ditch water is used, a move that is being actively opposed by some Bessemer shareholders. “The whole effort with the St. Charles agreement is part of our continuing attempt to address concerns of the shareholders along the Bessemer Ditch,” said Alan Hamel, executive director of the Pueblo water board, which is scheduled to meet at 2 p.m. today…

St. Charles has acquired shares as former farmland has been converted to residential use. The agreement, approved last month by the St. Charles board, would protect the groundwater and surface water interests of the water district. If the Pueblo water board removes water, it could reduce both seepage from the ditch and return flows hat feed St. Charles wells. The agreement also would maintain flows within the ditch and flows on the Arkansas River at Moffat Street, which also are diversion points for St. Charles. The water board also would agree to make certain improvements to the ditch, including installations of three measuring stations, and would not oppose changes by the St. Charles district as to how water is delivered to the district’s reservoirs. The water board also would continue to support the proposed Arkansas Valley Conduit and a plan to fund its development that is now in Congress. In return, the St. Charles district would support the water board in its proposed changes to the articles of incorporation and bylaws. It also would support “reasonable” proposals by the water board in Division 2 Water Court or with the Bessemer Ditch to change the use of its shares in the Bessemer Ditch. The Pueblo water board would retain its own control over engineering in change cases. The agreement is based on the assumption that the Pueblo water board would be able to purchase at least 1,500 shares…

The water board is proposing three major changes in the 1894 articles of incorporation that would allow the use of the water outside the ditch, but within Pueblo County; change possible points of diversion and change language relating to how bylaws are amended. The changes in the bylaws deal with how points of diversion would be changed and how other shareholders would be protected. The provisions go beyond the protection already afforded in water court through past decrees, Hamel said.

Not all shareholders in the Bessemer Ditch are in favor of the the board converting agricultural shares to municipal use, according to this report from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

The Pueblo water board’s proposed changes in Bessemer Ditch rules about how water is used are scheduled to be considered at a special meeting of Bessemer Ditch shareholders at 6 p.m. April 20 at the Pueblo Convention Center. Leonard DiTomaso, who along with Mike Klun won election to the Bessemer Ditch board in January on a platform to preserve farming, said there will be plenty of opposition to changing the 1894 articles of incorporation and subsequent bylaws. “They want to change our bylaws before they’ll buy the water and that’s wrong,” DiTomaso said Monday. “You can’t stop them from buying and selling water, but we just want to continue to farm.”

While landowners should be free to sell water rights, allowing the water to move outside traditional irrigation boundaries would open the door for selling water to growing cities in the north, DiTomaso said. If water leaves the ditch, it could make irrigating even harder for those who are left, he added…

DiTomaso estimated that the Pueblo water board would be able to buy about 5,000 shares on the ditch, combined with about 2,000 shares owned by St. Charles Mesa Water District. That would be about 35 percent of the 20,000 shares on the ditch.

“That leaves 65 percent of us who are small or average shareholders,” DiTomaso said. “I think we have them outnumbered, but you never know.”

Southern Delivery System: Pueblo County wants Colorado Springs Utilities to spend $50 million on mitigation

A picture named sdspreferredalternative.jpg

Here’s an update on Pueblo County’s 1041 permitting process for Colorado Springs’ proposed Southern Delivery System, from R. Scott Rappold writing for the Colorado Springs Gazette. From the article:

Pueblo County gave Colorado Springs Utilities a list of conditions Wednesday under which that county would approve a $1.1 billion water pipeline from Pueblo Reservoir, and a Utilities official said none of them appears to be a deal-killer. Utilities would be required to give $50 million to the new Fountain Creek Watershed, a consortium of local governments and organizations working to improve the creek. The money would be used for erosion, sedimentation, flood control and water quality projects, to compensate for sending increased treated effluent down that creek. Utilities would also have to spend $75 million on wastewater improvements here by the end of 2024, something Utilities officials said they planned to do anyway. “I just see this as another big step forward for the project,” said Utilities project manager John Fredell…

The conditions are the recommendation of the [Pueblo] county staff there; Pueblo commissioners then would approve them as part of approval for a permit for the pipeline. Colorado Springs City Council would also have to endorse them. Fredell said Wednesday he was unsure whether Pueblo County will attach additional conditions. Utilities officials had been waiting for weeks to see what conditions Pueblo County would attach. In the meantime, they have received approval from Fremont County to build a pipeline from the Arkansas River, a backup plan that would cost $150 million more, in case Pueblo County denied a permit or attached unfavorable conditions. There is a long tradition of acrimony over water issues between Colorado Springs and Pueblo, and Utilities challenged in court Pueblo County’s right to require a permit. After receiving the list of conditions Wednesday, Fredell said none appeared unacceptable, and even with the expenditures required, the Pueblo route would still be cheaper. “I see this as an investment in infrastructure and an investment in some great improvements in terms of recreational opportunities on Fountain Creek,” Fredell said…

Some of the other conditions would require Utilities to:

• Reduce sediment in lower Fountain Creek prior to SDS construction by dredging and sediment-collection.

• Maintain stormwater controls and other regulations intended to ensure that Fountain Creek peak flows resulting from new development served by the SDS project within the Fountain Creek basin are no greater than existing conditions.

• Continue participation in the Pueblo Flow Management Program to protect Arkansas River flows for recreation and the Arkansas River Corridor Legacy Project.

• Work with the Pueblo Board of Water Works to outline how the two cities would maintain a storage pool in Pueblo Reservoir to permit the release of water into the Arkansas River during times when the flow in the river could fall to low levels – at or below 50 cubic feet per second.

• Wait to begin construction at or near Pueblo Reservoir Dam until after the Bureau of Reclamation performs its dam-safety review and accepts the design construction plans.

• Voluntarily participate in developing a management plan for Pueblo Reservoir to protect reservoir levels and recreational opportunities, when and if the Southeastern Water Conservancy District, Reclamation and other affected parties agree to develop such a plan.

• Treat private property owners fairly, avoid creating financial burdens for property owners, and use power of eminent domain only as a last resort to acquire property and easements.

• Mitigate construction impacts and restore disturbed lands.

• Take “substantial steps” within 36 months to “construct the permitted development.”

The Donala Water and Sanitation District is looking at SDS as a possible means to move water that they’ve recently purchased from the Mount Massive Ranch, according to a report from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. The pipeline project is just one possible solution for water providers dependent on the Denver Basin Aquifer System. From the article:

Without SDS, Donala could look at other options: Using its new source as augmentation water or making a deal with the Super Ditch. With one study estimating a cost of at least $1 billion to build a pipeline from the Lower Arkansas Valley north, it’s not likely that the district and its neighbors could afford such an option, Duthie said. For a relatively small player like Donala, which serves about 2,700 homes, finding a way to get the water could be costly, but the district is reaching the point where it needs to spend money for water…

The owner of the Mount Massive Ranch approached Donala with the sale, which was completed in November. Donala paid $4.7 million for what it expects will be about 300 acre-feet of water, or more than $15,000 an acre-foot. That amounts to about one-fifth of the annual demand of the Donala district. The change of use of the water still has to be decreed in water court, and then there’s the problem of moving it. The district also owns about 700 acres in Lake County and is working with county commissioners there on how the land will be developed…

Donala sits atop the Denver Basin Aquifer, a deep underground source of water that is not tributary to surface systems. Like other El Paso communities, the district faces increasing costs of extracting the water in what amounts to mining the aquifer. While more wells could be drilled, the expense is prohibitive and Donala and its neighbors, which have banded together to form the Pikes Peak Water Authority, are searching for new solutions…

Other districts in El Paso County face similar challenges and could be in the market for water. Last year, the Pikes Peak authority put out feelers for water on the Bessemer Ditch, a move that ultimately sparked the Pueblo Board of Water Works most recent attempt to buy shares on the ditch. Fountain last year purchased a ranch in Custer County. In Fremont County, Penrose made a similar purchase of ranch water rights in the western end of the county. It’s not likely to stop. “We cannot rely on Denver Basin groundwater to solve our problems,” said Jessie Shaffer, who was recently hired as the engineer for the Woodmoor District, which has 3,300 accounts.

The Cherokee Metropolitan District, which is located near Colorado Springs, lost about 40 percent of its water in a recent court case and is still trying to gain state approval for a plan to recharge part of the Upper Black Squirrel Creek basin — a well area east of Colorado Springs not connected to surface supplies — so it can reuse flows it now flushes down the Fountain. New water could also be a possibility. The district serves more than 7,000 households. “Cherokee will never be off irrigation restrictions,” said Kip Petersen, general manager, adding that the decision has been hard. “People don’t like to hear that your lawn is a secondary concern.”

More Coyote Gulch coverage here, here and here.

Southern Delivery System: Pueblo County wants Colorado Springs to spend $50 million on mitigation

A picture named sdspreferredalternative.jpg

Here’s an update on Colorado Springs Utilities’ 1041 permit from Pueblo County for their proposed Southern Delivery System, written by Chris Woodka for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

The proposed conditions also seek continued funding of sewer improvements and stormwater controls in Colorado Springs, limits on out-of-basin water transfers, and new agreements on protecting Arkansas River flows and Lake Pueblo levels. Money would be earmarked for further study of flood control on Fountain Creek. Pueblo County commissioners will meet at 6 p.m. Wednesday at the Pueblo County Courthouse to hear public comment and consider the recommendations, which were released Wednesday and are posted on the county’s Web site. There is also an appendix that has a more complete list of conditions under the permit…

The $50 million would be paid out over five years after completion of the SDS pipeline. The funding would include a small amount, $300,000, for a study of a dam or dams for flood control on Fountain Creek. The remaining $49.7 million would go to support Fountain Creek upgrades listed in the Army Corps of Engineers 2008 report on the Fountain Creek Watershed, the Fountain Creek Corridor Master Plan and future projects not yet identified. If a Fountain Creek Flood Control and Greenway District is created by the state Legislature, it would manage the funds. Otherwise, the county and SDS partners would create a Fountain Creek Restoration Foundation to carry out the projects, according to staff recommendations…

“I’ve only looked at it real quickly, but it looks consistent with what our staff has talked about,” said John Fredell, SDS project director. “I’m hoping these are workable conditions.” Colorado Springs council members and management will take the county’s staff recommendations and compare the cost of complying with them against the cost of coming out of Fremont County to make a “good business decision,” Fredell said…

The recommendations seek a guarantee that Colorado Springs will spend an additional $75 million on sewer improvements by the year 2024, on top of the $114 million it has spent since 2000. Sewer upgrades are also required to meet the conditions of state health department compliance orders that were issued for more than 100 sewer spills by Colorado Springs dating back to 1998. There are other conditions specific to Fountain Creek, which is central to SDS even though the 14-mile route of the pipeline goes to the west of Interstate 25, from Pueblo Dam through Pueblo West and Walker ranches before entering El Paso County. The pipeline is a total 50 miles long, and the project includes a treatment plant and two reservoirs to the north on Fountain Creek. Colorado Springs would commit to sediment control on Clear Springs Ranch, located south of Fountain, and would include Pueblo County in its adaptive management plan for Fountain Creek, as outlined in the Bureau of Reclamation’s environmental impact statement. Additional conditions would commit SDS funding for Corps recommendations to dredge in Pueblo to maintain the effectiveness of flood control levees. Colorado Springs would assure that peak flows and volume during flooding would not increase from current levels, primarily through its stormwater enterprise, according to the recommendations…

The recommendations would put constraints on SDS as well. Any increase in water moving through the pipeline beyond the 78 million gallons per day for Colorado Springs, Security and Fountain and 18 million gallons per day with Pueblo West would trigger a permit review. Any water sold or leased must stay within Arkansas River basin. If any other areas of El Paso County contract for water, they must comply with a list of Fountain Creek protections…

Elsewhere, in addition to insisting on compliance with the flow management program on the Arkansas River through Pueblo, the recommendations ask for new agreements between Colorado Springs and the Pueblo Board of Water Works. One pact would create a pool of water in Lake Pueblo to supplement low flows – those below 50 cubic feet per second – in the river. The current agreement simply restricts exchanges when flows drop below 100 cfs and allows for voluntary releases for such things as kayak events in the Downtown Whitewater Park. Security and Pueblo West would be required to sign on to the flow management program, which already includes Colorado Springs and Fountain.

In a separate pact, Colorado Springs Utilities would also be required to execute a sharing agreement for the North Outlet Works. The county also would require a separate review of the North Outlet Works by the Reclamation in order to assure dam safety…

There are also provisions dealing with Lake Pueblo. One is a lake level management program suggested by Ray Petros, a Pueblo County water lawyer, in January. The details of the program are intentionally vague, since Colorado Springs and its SDS partners do not have control of the total volume in Lake Pueblo…

The recommended conditions also would include Pueblo County as a partner in any future discussions about the enlargement of Lake Pueblo. The recommendations would provide three years for Colorado Springs to begin construction, subject to obtaining the necessary state and federal permits.

Here’s a look at the prospect of guaranteed flows in the Arkansas River through Pueblo if an agreement is struck between Colorado Springs Utilities and the Pueblo Board of Water Works as part of the proposed Southern Delivery System, from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

The agreement is one of two the Pueblo water board and Colorado Springs are looking at as part of Pueblo County mitigation for the Southern Delivery System. The other would clarify which outlets at Pueblo Dam could be used to supply water. Both agreements will be considered Tuesday by the water board at its monthly meeting…

The new flow program would go beyond the provisions of the plan set up under the 2004 intergovernmental agreement between the city of Pueblo, the Pueblo water board and Colorado Springs by creating a pool of water at Lake Pueblo to release into the Arkansas River during extreme low flows, said Alan Hamel, executive director of the Pueblo water board. “The Legacy Program has given us more flexibility,” Hamel explained, referring to an effort to improve fish habitat and recreation on the Arkansas River that began in the 1990s. “The fresh water released from the pool will help keep the oxygen levels up for fish.” The 2004 IGA, also joined by Fountain, the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District and Aurora, prevents exchanges during times when the flow of the Arkansas River drops below 100 cubic feet per second. That agreement would remain in place if Pueblo County commissioners and Colorado Springs agree on mitigation for SDS proposed this week by county staff…

The county also would require Security, Pueblo West and any future users of SDS to join the flow program as well, if staff recommendations are accepted. The new program would kick in at flows that are dangerously low for fish, under 50 cfs. Flows approach those levels at times during winter months when there is little water in the river and most of that is being stored under the winter water program. It happened in 2005, and in 2007 was averted by an emergency lease of water from Pueblo by the Division of Wildlife. There is nothing in the 2004 IGA that requires any release of water to make up the deficiency Under the new agreement, Pueblo and Colorado Springs each would store 1,500 acre-feet to hold available for release. The 3,000 acre-foot pool would be enough to provide additional flows of 50 cfs to the river for about one month. However, the full amount would probably not be needed on 30 consecutive days, according to historical records. As under the existing flow program, there would be exceptions for dry years. Under the new agreement, Pueblo would not have to store water if it did not have sufficient water for its annual program of leasing raw water to other users in the Arkansas Valley. Colorado Springs would not be required to provide water to the new pool if its storage supplies were below 70 percent or if river flows were projected to be below average by May 1 federal forecasts…

The second agreement would protect Pueblo’s use of the Joint Use Manifold below Pueblo Dam on the south side of the Arkansas River and proposes sharing the North Outlet Works, which would be constructed on the river outlet on the north side of the dam, Colorado Springs has proposed for SDS. It also would restrict SDS deliveries through the Joint Use Manifold if Pueblo were unable to receive gravity-fed flows at the Whitlock Treatment Plant. Pueblo, the Fountain Valley Authority and Pueblo West all use the south manifold now, but there is excess capacity. In the future, however, Pueblo and the Arkansas Valley Conduit would use that capacity. The agreement sets out ways Colorado Springs and Pueblo could share both the existing manifold and the North Outlet Works, perhaps with an interconnecting pipeline. Pueblo could share in some of the costs if it chose to connect with the north side works.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Arkansas River Basin Water Forum March 31st – April 1st

A picture named arkansasriverbasin.jpg

From the Pueblo Chieftain:

The forum, with the theme “Water to Fuel Our Future,” is scheduled March 31 and April 1 in the Occhiato University Center at Colorado State University-Pueblo.

Jennifer Gimbel, director of the Colorado Water Conservation Board, will deliver the keynote address at 9:25 a.m. March 31.

The rest of the first day’s events include an update of the Arkansas Basin Roundtable, a panel on energy and water, a presentation by state climatologist Nolan Doesken and a panel on drought and climate risk. Historian Joanne Dodds will speak on Pueblo water history at the day’s luncheon.

Topics on April 1 will include updates on area conservancy districts, Fountain Creek activities, invasive species and Lake Pueblo. The Bob Appel award, art awards and service awards will be presented at the day’s luncheon. Field trips will include the Xeriscape Garden at the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District and the Steelworks Museum of Industry and Culture, located at the historic CF&I Steel site.

For registration information and more details, log on to the Web site or call Perry Cabot at 549-2045.

Meanwhile the organizers of the forum are inviting the public to submit artwork around the theme of water, according to a report from the Pueblo Chieftain.

Colorado cities looking for sustainable supplies

A picture named measuringwithweir.jpg

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.

Southeastern looking to lease excess capacity in Lake Pueblo

A picture named puebloreservoir .jpg

Here’s a recap of this week’s meeting of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District’s board, from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

Built as part of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, Lake Pueblo is rarely full, and the excess capacity is leased by the Bureau of Reclamation for storage of non-project water. While Reclamation has leased space in the reservoir since 1986, interest has skyrocketed since the drought of 2002. The Pueblo Board of Water Works obtained a 25-year lease for excess-capacity storage in 2000 and Aurora negotiated a 40-year lease in 2007. Colorado Springs and its partners in the Southern Delivery System are seeking a 40-year storage contract as well. The Southeastern district included a master lease for excess capacity storage in its Preferred Storage Options Plan, which also envisioned enlargement of Lake Pueblo and Turquoise Lake.

While the enlargement plan has stalled, the district now wants to move ahead with the master lease, said Harold Miskel, who chairs the PSOP committee. “There are changes in the amount of water requested and new entities,” Miskel told the Southeastern board this week. “There are a lot of questions in front of the committee.” Executive Director Jim Broderick reminded the board that it decided last year to split off the excess-capacity question from PSOP after talks about enlargement broke down in 2007. There has to be some more study before the district decides how to move ahead with its master contract, since other projects like SDS and the Arkansas Valley Conduit also are moving, Broderick said…

Currently, excess-capacity contracts are negotiated year-by-year. Last year, contracts totalled 55,475 acre-feet, or about one-fifth of the available space in Lake Pueblo. That’s about three times the average from 1996-2002. A 2006 report by Reclamation found no significant environmental impact for storage of up to 80,000 acre-feet of non-project water over a five-year period…

In other business, the Southeastern board voted to use up to 1,900 acre-feet of water it has stored to cover sales of return flows of project agricultural water. The backlog of flows results from water that farmers did not use last year. Under district rules, 80 percent of the water must be used in the year it is purchased from the district. The remainder may be held until the following spring. Because the water is imported from the Fryingpan River in the Colorado River Basin, the return flows can be sold to other users.

Ginn Development Co high bidder for Columbine Ditch

A picture named highmeadow .jpg

Ginn Development Co was the high bidder for the Columbine Ditch. The Pueblo Board of Water Works gets to bank $30.48 million, according to a report from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain.

Aurora will get one more shot at the ditch. From the article:

The sale of the Columbine Ditch to a developer of a ski mountain at Minturn was approved by the Pueblo Board of Water Works on Tuesday, but Aurora still has one more chance to bid on the transmountain ditch.

Under its 1997 contract to lease water from Pueblo, Aurora has the first right of refusal until 2013 on the sale of any transmountain asset – a ditch or tunnel that brings water from the Western Slope into the Arkansas River basin. The Pueblo water board has several of those assets and wants to sell the Columbine Ditch to help pay for its purchase of Bessemer Ditch water shares.

Meanwhile the board is busy leasing water, according to a report from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

Long-term leases of 200 acre-feet for $350 an acre-foot per year for 40 years went to the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District and Evergreen Land Development of Dallas. The Upper Ark will use the water in its blanket augmentation plan for users in Chaffee, Custer and Fremont counties. Evergreen will use the water at the Mount Massive Golf Course and associated development.

Aurora bid $250 per acre-foot for 1,000 acre-feet the first year, and increased the amount and the price over a 20-year period. The water board followed Purchasing Agent Kathy Stommel’s recommendation to reject the bid because it failed to meet minimum requirements.

The water board had offered up to 5,000 acre-feet of water for long-term leases.

The short-term leases are for 10,690 acre-feet for one year only and range from $25-$75 per acre-foot. Ward said the timing of the leases – many want the water delivered before June 1 – would be good for the water board because it would not have to release water it already has stored in accounts.