HomeMy WebLinkAbout20031491.tiff BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WORK SESSION NOTES
WATER BRIEFING
May 14, 2003, 6:30 p.m.
Present:
Chair Dave Long
Rob Masden
Mike Geile
Bill Jerke
Glenn Vaad
Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney
Carol Harding, Acting Clerk to the Board
Chair Long gave a welcome to everyone and introduced the County officials who were present.
He then asked that everyone in the room stand up and give their name so everyone will know who
is present. Those present are as follows:
Mark Sirus Marilyn Owens Jim Hall Tabor Williams
Ken Bolers Diane Hoppe Andy Jones Harry Strohauer
Steven Jensen Don Ament Tom Cech Bob Sakata
Butch Kirkun Alan Berryman Terry Wiedman Chuck Bird
Gary Ellis C. Richard Johnson Skylar Loeffler Bruce Sandau
Jon Monson Jack Oder Mary Ann Craven Randy Knutson
Harold Evans Jim Park Stan Cass Billie McCarthy
Steve Sims W. Wayne Miller Jim Smith Doyle McCarthy
Yolanda Hernandez Dennis Wagner Marshall Frasier
Dale Hall JerryAlldredep Jim Eckersley
Dave Owen Joe Plummer Keith McIntire
Commissioner Jerke stated since the passage of Senate Bill 73 (SB73) there has been a lot of
misinformation and varying opinions as to what is included, and also with House Bill 1001. He
stated there are some tremendous difficulties and opportunities ahead of us in this area in
particular, and it occurred to the Board of Commissioners that there was a need to get together to
assure everyone is speaking from the same page. This is an opportunity to understand the
circumstances, noting that SB73 is merely a mechanism for people to be able to legally pump
irrigation wells in the future. Commissioner Jerke stated that is the primary motivation for this
meeting, but there are other viewpoints being examined, and he is hopeful positive changes can
be made in response to the meeting.
Presentations were as follows:
1. Tom Cech, Central Colorado Water Conservancy District-Water 101. A similar meeting
to this occurred in 1874 in Windsor, because in 1870 the colonists in Union Colony dug a
ditch through town called the Greeley #3 Ditch. They irrigated for a few years, and
everything was fine until they had a very dry year. However, upon noticing a drop in the
amount of water,they traveled up the Poudre River to Ft. Collins,where they found two new
ditches had been cut in above the Greeley#3 Headgate. To solve the disagreement about
who had rights to the water, individuals from both entities met at Windsor to determine how
6
w ,t (271,,a_
2003-1491
rD -9- 003 Cc ,Ja): 5% C
WATER BRIEFING
May 14, 2003
Page 2
to solve the problem. General Cameron sent everyone home when emotions ran too high,
and the next day it started to rain. Two years later in the State Constitution, they put in the
"Doctrine of prior appropriation, first in time,first in right." Meaning if you dug the ditch first,
and put it to beneficial use, you get the water first. Things were fine, lots of well were drilled
in the 1900's and the alluvial aquifer became more shallow, having a negative flow to the
streams in the area.
In 1965 farmers by Sterling said there was not as much water as usual, so they drove
upstream and found thousands of irrigation wells pumping. In 1969, the Colorado State
Legislature passed a law that said all well users that are pumping shallow ground water
have to be part of that same priority system, "Doctrine of prior appropriation." With that,
thousands of wells would not be able to pump during the dry summer months in future
years. So they came up with the concept of augmentation; which allows one to augment
the flow in the River by purchasing or leasing other water to offset the depletions caused
by the"out of priority" pumping. This worked fine until everything came to a head last year
because of the drought - - there simply was not enough water for everyone, and
augmentation is a natural progression of allocating a scarce resource. There is not enough
water to go around, so legislative laws get passed to determine the fair way to allocate the
resource.
2. Steve Sims, Colorado Attorney General's Office - SB73. A similar meeting on this very
same subject was held one year ago, going into one of the worst droughts in this State.
Representative Hoppe's House Bill 1414 (HB1414) had just passed, the Governor had
signed it that day, and everyone was hopeful it would end the controversy. The State
Engineer's plan to keep wells operating in the South Platte was to promulgate rules and
regulations, which happened a few days later. No one anticipated the legal challenge to
promulgate those rules and regulations, which resulted in a summer-long fight between
those that thought the Water Court should be approving the operation of the wells, or
whether the State Engineer should be doing it. Everything came to a head in December
when Judge Hayes ruled the State Engineer did not have the authority. Senator Owen,
Representative Hoppe, CommissionerAment, and a number of other individuals interested
in water got together to determine how to fix the problem.
The Plan was two-fold - - challenge the Court ruling in the Supreme Court and ask for an
expedited review, and put together legislation. They were able to come up with a way to
make it work because water user organizations that had pushed the wells into this
controversy, primarily the Fort Morgan and Bijou systems, came to the table to avoid
shutting down the wells. However, they want everyone to play by the same rules and
ensure the process is one that can be understood and that there are not injured. Based on
that, this process was started. Although it was not easy, and many felt compromise would
never be reached, they kept working at it. Senator Owen, Representative Hoppe, and
Attorney General Salazar came together and appointed a group of individuals involved in
the controversy that they felt made up a fair representation. The broader the group got,the
closer they came to a compromise. That group came to a 15 to 3 split, so they thought this
bill would work. In the General Assembly it all blew up again. People who had not been
included wanted to have their say; therefore, they learned that there is a better chance of
WATER BRIEFING
May 14, 2003
Page 3
reaching a solution if more people are involved in early discussions. Dick McCravey with
the Water Congress came on and offered to mediate further discussions.
After numerous other meetings, they finally came up with what is now SB73. It was a
comprehensive settlement, not only concerning the Platte, but also the Arkansas Basin.
In a nutshell, they did come up with a process. Some well owners will not be able to
continue in operation and the senior surface users did not get all the protection they
wanted. A great deal of trust is asked of each other, and the fight is not over. One of the
high points, and probably the major provision as well as the major compromise of SB73,
is that the wells that had never had adjudicated augmentation plans have been given three
more years to file something in Water Court. Once in Water Court they use the process
there to continue operating under HB1414 until they are finally approved in Water Court.
The well users did not want to go to court at all, and the surface users thought they should
be in Court immediately. The two came together, and three years was the compromise.
What made it enforceable, and the thing that almost broke down the whole agreement was
the surface users wanted assurance that three years meant absolutely only three years.
Therefore, they are primarily relying on the provision that says if you are not filed in Court
by December 31, 2005, you will be continuously curtailed until you have an augmentation
plan. No further extensions shall be granted.
Another assurance given was that each well user had to either sign a statement for their
substitute supply plan or authorize the person signing for a whole group that they were
aware of the three-year deadline. Probably one of the biggest criticisms from the well users
standpoint was that, although signed into law by the Governor on April 30th, there is a
process involved in which the well user will file an application with the State Engineer. The
allowable time for comments is 30 days, then a hearing is set before the State Engineer
between 35 and 50 days from the time the plan is filed, and after the hearing the State
Engineer can approve the plan. Many well users say their supply could dry up in the 35 to
50-day period or they may not get their crop going and they could go out of business during
that time. However,that was the best they could get through, and they are working through
the process as quickly as possible.
Another big deal was how much the wells had to pay, which was a big issue in both the
rurals and the prior approvals. In the prior approvals, the wells that were not operating on
center pivots would only have to pay 40 percent of their pumping back to the stream. They
compromised on that, since surface users preferred 60 to 65 percent of the pumping
amounts being repaid to the stream, and well users thought that 40 percent was the correct
number. The amount they compromised on was 50 percent, which is the number that will
be used for the next three years. Then whatever the Court decides is the correct number
will be what each individual plan lives with.
Another major part was that this winter there was a call that was enforced all winter long.
The State Engineer's Office has never enforced calls in winter; however,this year they were
absolutely certain the reservoirs would not fill, especially the Sterling Reservoir. Now the
projections are optimistic that all reservoirs in the South Platte will fill this year. The hard
lessons learned are that you can't expect trust if you're not giving out all the information.
You can't earn trust if the process isn't transparent, if everyone does not see the same
— r
WATER BRIEFING
May 14, 2003
Page 4
information and understand the full process,or if people are excluded from decision-making
process.
3. Jim Hall - State Engineer. (Could not make it.)
4. Jack Oder, Manager of Groundwater Appropriators of the South Platte(GASP). One of the
more profound comments to come out of the Senate Hearing was not everything is broken;
it works a lot more times than it doesn't work. Everyone has gotten to know each other
better, which will help in future dealings. He is not as upbeat about the future as Steve
Sims; however, in the GASP office, they have had numerous phone calls because of the
rumors and coffee shop talk that have been circulating. They constantly heard they have
"three free years ahead of us." People were eager to believe it, so therefore, believed it,
and some may still believe it. They tried to tell everyone that is not what SB73 says, and
the opportunity to continue as they have known it is probably gone. People with sprinklers,
not associated with a ditch company, who have not taken advantage of the opportunities
of the last thirty-some years to create augmentation plans, and have not had the
opportunity to be in an area where the geography was such that they could pursue
opportunities like that, will probably not be able to farm again as an irrigated farm.
A number of Real Estate agents and appraisers have said banks are telling customers the
land will be valued somewhere around one-fourth to one-fifth of its former value for loan
purposes; which will affect appraisals for assessment purposes for property tax value.
Effect on GASP - GASP was created and designed to go out of business over time. Only
about one-fourth of the organization were board members from the Fort Morgan and Bijou
Canal. They took advantage of opportunities, pursued their own augmentation plan, and
left GASP. It was felt that would be the end result of all members, and GASP would go out
of business eventually. However, through GASP renting water, renting pumps, buying
water, etc., many people got used to paying their bill each year, and were happy to continue
that way. GASP was never designed to purchase enough water to satisfy everyone at all.
GASP does continue to own some water. The recent past would suggest that the
Logan/Sedgwick County area have decided they want to provide for their own augmentation
efforts. They have built a number of recharge facilities, a number of wells and pipelines that
are discussed in SB73, and there are now at least three major groups that consist of
virtually everyone in District 64 that will do their own thing from now on. They have certainly
indicated they do not want to do the book work and billing, etc., and would like GASP to
continue in an administrative role; however, they will take care of Court and legal issues
themselves. Similar activities have occurred in the Greeley to Brighton area, with
individuals filing their own plan and pursue getting into the Central District, with a tax base
to defray some expenses, and it isn't certain whether those entities are expecting GASP
to continue to do the administrative tasks long-term.
When SB73 was filed, the GASP Board sent a form to all members that said if you want
GASP to file, send your authorization form back in. All that information is now posted on
the GASP website and can be downloaded, listing all the water supplies GASP has
available. It is unlikely the entire membership is going to pump a full supply-- more likely,
a scenario of a percentage of past usage or something of that nature will be allowed.
WATER BRIEFING
May 14, 2003
Page 5
GASP is trying to accommodate all the arrangements in SB73; the amount that has to be
replaced; and the 35 to 50-day time frame at a time when farmers don't want to invest a lot
of money if they find out later they can't finish the crop. A bit of soft money this year
through the Federal insurance program; however, could produce a bigger calamity to some
next year.
5. Tom Cech - Central and Bonding for a New District. From a County perspective, there will
be a lot of wells not pumping this summer, some people will loose their farms, and some
will revert to dry land farming. What can the County Commissioners do to mitigate those
impacts? Second is financing. Central has a groundwater management sub-district which
has been around since the early 1970's and augments about 1,000 irrigation wells. Central
owns senior water rights and so forth, and had a bond issue passed last fall for another$20
million to buy senior water rights and develop some lined gravel pit projects. Central closed
on $4 million of senior water rights last week, and it has $10 million of lined gravel pits
storage under contract. Central also had a meeting with 700 producers to investigate
creating a new subdistrict for well augmentation. Central boundaries are Commerce City
to Greeley to Fort Morgan, and that is the area being considered for a new sub-district. The
Board voted to proceed and create the new sub-district; therefore, they are in the process
of trying to figure out the assessment of all the property owners who applied to be included
in the new subdistrict. There is a mill levy restriction with a cap of 9 mills based on the
assessed valuation if it is under $20 million; if over, the cap is 6 mills, etc. For a Cadillac
augmentation plan for the new sub-district, it would require $100-200 million for the water
rights. The amount is high because of the recent spike in the cost of water. For some folks
with senior water rights, the need for augmentation water is reduced, so it won't be as
painful. Those who have a central pivot and no ditch water have a real problem, especially,
if they are in a high rent district by Brighton because it will be extremely difficult to come up
with the cash to augment a well. The time frame on the new sub-district is to get it created
by this summer; a bond election cannot be held until November, 2004; and they could
create an Enterprise Fund and actually start collecting revenues prior to that.
6. Dr. Marshall Frasier, CSU Economist. An analysis was done in late December regarding
SB73, although it is difficult to tell where to go from here. The three-year time period gives
some room to mitigate impacts; although there are not three free years. Everyone must
decide how to make the most of the three years, since there are more difficulties than
opportunities. Impacts will depend on the going rate of water rights and what individuals
can afford to pay for water. From the County perspective there will be many who cannot
pay, and the impact will be to what level can we afford to subsidize. There is a direct
impact, but furthermore, how much is the indirect impact. The impact will not only effect
farmers, but those that are selling to and buying from them. At what cost is an acre foot
worth the value being paid, and how much does society mitigate the cost.
7. Andy Jones, Weld County Well Users Association. Practices will include Lind, Lawrence
and Ottonhoff, and they have handled many Water Court applications for well user groups
where well users are splitting off from GASP and seeking their own augmentation plans.
When District Court made its ruling, it left GASP without any legal standing. Certain well
users came forward with a desire to separate from GASP and establish a plan that would
work for them. The groups being formed are primarily of those owning surface, or senior
WATER BRIEFING
May 14, 2003
Page 6
ditch, rights; they are nonprofit corporations, governed by board members composed
largely of ditch company board members because of their involvement in augmentation
plans; their purpose is to file augmentation in Court and seek approval this year. HB1414,
passed last year, said if a party filed a Water Court application, indicating a substitute
supply of water, they could continue operating. The South Platte Well Users Association
currently consists of 352 wells,former GASP members, 388 Logan wells, 144 Lower Logan
wells, and 136 Sedgwick County wells,with a total in terms of water court applications filed
in the last several months being just over 1,000 wells.
The South Platte Well Users Association started with less than 50 wells, and the initial filling
was less than 100 wells; however,the second filing included many more. Membership was
wide open to anyone on the South Platte, but the primary focus was on group of ditches
south of here, including Union, Farmers Independent Ditch, Western Mutual Ditch,
Platteville Irrigation and Milling Company, and the Platte Valley Irrigation Company. The
Association has filed a Water Court application and there is an application for a substitute
supply plan pending with the State Engineer. The substitute supply plan largely involves
the bypass of senior surface rights, so it is the concept of dedicating the senior ditch rights
to the river to make the river whole for the depletions that are caused by the well this
summer. Some action is likely in 35 to 40 days. The intent is that all South Platte well
users will be folded into a new Central Colorado sub-district, which Tom Cech was
describing. The intent of this Association is to carry the ball for a year or two until the new
sub-district is up and running, then switch to it.
One of the significant events happening now are the pending substitute supply plan
applications. One has been filed under GASP, and is pending. All of the plans described
also have plans pending and are under review by the State Engineer. From the well
owners' perspective, the next 30 to 60 days ares absolutely critical as to whether wells will
be available or not. There is an opportunity for appeal after approval or denial to Water
Court, which could see activity over the summer.
More general points for the future are that some wells will definitely be curtailed throughout
2003, and there will be an impact; all permanent wells will be in augmentation by
December 31, 2005; the impact on farmers will include engineering and attorney fees for
a simple application of$10,000, plus purchase of senior water rights. The reality is some
wells will be permanently curtailed. The answer to weathering the economic storm is in
creation of the new sub-district, since only with the power of taxation can the burden be
spread to allow some farmers to survive the storm. The individual farmers cannot bear the
entire weight.
8. Harold Evans, City of Greeley - Municipal interests. The City of Greeley was one of the
original litigants that brought about Judge Hayes' decision and the Supreme Court
affirmation of his decision, and was the only municipality that testified in support of SB73.
The City of Greeley is a partner with agriculture, and consider it to be a valuable partner.
From a municipal standpoint, he will share his observations as Chairman of the Greeley
Water Board as they've gone through rate setting, capital improvement plans, and master
planning for the next 25 years.
WATER BRIEFING
May 14, 2003
Page 7
The drought of 2002 was really three years long; however, in 2002 there was a triple
whammy with the lowest snowpack on record, real low runoff, the Poudre Basin yield was
way down, participation was extremely low, and we had the third hottest July on record.
Everyone learned more about their own systems and, as a result, municipalities are doing
the same type of evaluation. Greeley wants enough water to get through a 50-year drought
cycle; however, the City's reservoirs are down about one-third. It cannot buy or handle this
large drought cycle again;therefore municipalities are looking at ways to maximize existing
resources and looking at effluents, return flows, etc. This creates more competition for
water resources, and continues to drive up prices. Growth will continue. This area is rated
in many publications as the fastest growing.
Completion of E-470 around Denver and DIA is going to have an effect on this area. Don't
underestimate the impact of the beltway around the metro area. There will be a
significantly higher growth rate than the rest of the metro area, and we have already seen
growth in the Del Camino area. We know the metro area has been buying CBT water, with
current rights costing $16-17,000 per acre foot. The City uses a 2.5 percent population and
demand increase. With the North metro area up-river from Greeley and Weld County,they
will start looking here for water sources and will most likely have significant financial
resources because of growth.
Possible activities and consequences. The cities will start lining gravel pits, do
conservation, more non-potable water, recycling effluents, and look at getting more
consumable water out of existing water rights. This will eventually put less water in the
river, which has major implications on augmentation plans. There will be more exchange
possibilities, exchanging it back up stream, more reclamation and recycling projects, and
growing over systems. Cities will look at maximization of return flows.
Acquisition of agricultural water. Some have obtained water like Thornton, where it's not
known until its over with; some will be above board and plans will be out in the open.
Interruptible supply contracts will be used;there may be some temporary industrial use, but
farms will be paid; water will be sold but leased back for a number of years; potential sale
of the first use, where the second use is retained; and outright purchase and dry-up. It is
critical to build more storage, in short term with gravel pits, but have to prove to Federal
regulators the ability to have more reservoirs. Exchange potentials with raw water
pipelines, from metro area to take water back that way are expensive, but there may not
be other options. All of this presents opportunities for cooperation and partnership between
ditch companies and municipalities. Competition for water increase drives price up,and the
drought focused everyone's attention on water. Growth will continue, there will be more
competition, and all municipalities need to do everything possible to build major storage
projects in future. The options are to fight, or to cooperate, be creative, and adapt to
change.
9. Alan Berryman-Northern Conservancy District. Things don't get any worse than last year.
We're still seeing some repercussions and need to make sure we learn lessons in planning
for the future. One tool is augmentation wells; we need to learn how to use them, and how
to integrate them. It will be easier farther down the river, since there are fewer and fewer
WATER BRIEFING
May 14, 2003
Page 8
water rights as you get further down. Up stream will have to learn how to integrate
augmentation with senior water rights.
The second tool is a temporary change of water rights, which will allow the senior ditch
systems that have surface water to change that to other uses at times like this. We also
need to be aware of what's going on around us, i.e., growth, water demand, and
competition. Look at the metro area-- as it starts re-using water, it will have a detrimental
effect, currently 18,000 feet of water coming down the river. Also is the offsetting impact
of new reservoirs.
10. Lee Morrison - Potential land use changes. Although there is no firm proposal in front of
the Board of County Commissioners, it will be holding a work session to see a draft at the
beginning of the process to amend the Code. Any change would require a Planning
Commission hearing, and three hearings before the Board of Commissioners. Also, in
some instances, work sessions accompany the Ordinance process. It is a legislative
process, therefore, contact with individual Commissioners or staff is allowed.
Currently, Weld County has several procedures for splitting land and developing. The
Recorded Exemption (RE) process is the most simple. The original RE process consisted
of dividing 80 acres into two parcels, one less than 35 acres in size. Six years ago, a
three-lot process was developed to allow two lots to be less than 35 acres in size, if the
third parcel remained at least 120 acres in size. The concept was to have a simple
process, that would allow farmers to create two saleable lots, and maintain the additional
lot in production. With recent discussion, staff is looking at a four-lot process, which would
be similar. As staff has discussed, it is to start at 160 acres, with the larger parcel being
available for production. The current draft has 145 acres in the large lot, with others being
no less than three acres in size. That proposal is at the lowest level of investment in the
process. Other processes are currently available, such as cluster development, a more
involved Planned Unit Development(PUD)process,which is advantageous in some cases,
because if you are proposing ground water for use of new residences, there may be some
bonuses available. Timing, as well as expenses, will be a major issue. The Board will
probably look at the RE process since it can be done much more quickly at a lower
processing cost. The other concept that has been discussed is that, currently there is a
ten-year waiting period between RE applications. One of things on the table will be
decreasing that time. Until seven years ago it was changed from five to ten years, so there
will be more discussion on the timeline.
11. Don Ament, Commissioner of Agriculture - Legislators. Commissioner Ament expressed
his disappointment that HB1414 didn't have time to operate, and in what has been
happening in the past ten years,why everyone waited to work with the State Engineer, and
trying to get water to seniors. Now, because of the drought, everyone is crying foul and is
in crisis mode. Fortunately, there are legislators that help Senator Owens, and
Representatives Hoppe, Williams, and Hall. The result of doing this in Court has delayed
this process so much it will put people out of business. It's unknown if the seniors will have
more water or a market for their livestock, or whether the dairies will have feed or if the
sugar factory will still operate.
WATER BRIEFING
May 14, 2003
Page 9
We have improved the river, through good management. This basin has been greened up
and made top producers. We need to do preventive planning about the cost of water and
help agriculture, which is the third largest contributor to the economy, rather than shutting
off wells and drying up farm land. Very important decisions need to be made, not only
between seniors and well users. This should have been a concern long before a few dry
years. SB73 is now in effect. We can improve management; the State Engineer has made
many improvements; there was no need to stall all this; and with the potential for filling all
the reservoirs, why is 2003 going to be different than 1999? A Senior reservoir system, in
worst drought last year, delivered 125 percent. Why were there not more augmentation
plans then? This is a very expensive lesson in how to manage water. Interruptible supply
and water banking are opportunities for solution. We must maintain the agricultural
economy which is so much more important than most people think; and even though it is
not going to be easy to tell people we're going to start trimming agriculture in Colorado, in
reality it's what we will do. Hopefully there will be no frivolous challenges to those
presenting reasonable plans; and if the State Engineer says it's a reasonable plan, let's not
delay the growth of crop by delays and lawsuits.
- - Senator Dave Owens described a few of the lawsuits during the last few years regarding
the Arkansas, Republican, River District, and Rio Grand. He said it took longer to pass
SB73 than desired; and it was thanks to the efforts of Steve Jensen, Butch Gerkin, Manual
Montoya, Skylar Leffler, Harold Evans, Jack Oder, and Steve Sims that it was successfully
passed. Senator Owens stated there is also the issue of the west slope versus the east
slope. He said water storage is the key to water conservation, and in the future the push
will be more and more toward urban legislators pushing for a State water plan.
- - Representative Diane Hoppe stated she had some trepidation because SB73 wasn't
passed in a timely fashion, and she realizes wells also affect municipalities, feedlots, and
dairies. She is fearful that a 300-year event was the basis for the legislation; however,
everyone will be on a level playing field. She also stated other important legislation was
passed this year, and the west slope needs to look at legislation, since they can use most
of it if they are creative and have cooperation among themselves. She specifically
mentioned HB1334, the Interruptible supply bill; HB1318, Water banking bill; and HB1001,
temporary change of use (it was an oversight not to include this in HB1414).
Representative Hoppe said HB1001 also includes flexibility of water resources and
conservation provisions, although conservation is better handled at a local level, since they
have better control and understanding of the needs. She also discussed SB110, the
CWCB construction fund bill, in terms of funding the State-wide water supply study,
continuing the funding for the South Platte decision support system, and a funding
mechanism for water storage projects, as well as base and mitigation and something in
terms of forest management on State owned lands. Representative Hoppe said it is now
up to all of us to be cooperative and make it work to stretch water resources.
- - Representative Tambor Williams expressed her thanks to all who worked on SB73, but
noted we have to keep working at it.
- - Representative Dale Hall added that the bonding issue being discussed this fall needs to
be pursued, and he encouraged everyone to not let up on water issues.
WATER BRIEFING
May 14, 2003
Page 10
12. Questions? Responding to Commissioner Jerke, Tom Chech reviewed the funding for the
proposed sub-district, and reiterated it would take approximately $100 to $200 million. At
9 mills, he estimated revenue of $10 million.
Responding to Chair Long, Dr. Frasier discussed the difficulties in forecasting models when
there is not enough relevant data, but stated they should have some numbers by the end
of summer.
Randy Knutson observed that Boulder was is direct opposition to SB73; however, last week
it relaxed its water restrictions. Responding to Mr. Knutson, Harold Evans stated the City
of Greeley will file notice of opposition to 6 or 12 water cases on a monthly basis. He noted
first and foremost, his obligation is to protect water rates for the City; however, he usually
files in order to get more information as to what is going on and to assure there is not
something in the case that will impact senior water rights. Mr. Evans reiterated the potential
impact to senior water rights is the only reason the City files the objections; and he noted
he has to protect those rights first and foremost. Responding to Commissioner Ament, Mr.
Evans said the City will not be an objector in 1,500 cases everyone is trying to get done in
30 days, and said the City is being very selective about which ones to file.
Randy Knutson stated he hopes everyone understands the urgency of getting the cases
through the process quickly. He said everyone has to understand how critical it is to get
augmentation plans and supply plans into effect, and stated farmers still don't know
whether they should plant, and irrigate or use wells. He said it is still questionable who has
authority in a lot of farmers minds.
Responding to Commissioner Geile, Steve Sims, Attorney General's Office, stated the
Water Court was given the ultimate jurisdiction by the Supreme Court. Under both HB1414
and SB73,the State Engineer has the ability to grant substitute water supply plans if people
go through the procedure set forth. The problem Central had was that it was the first one
to go through this process, so they had to make sure all the information was in place. Mr.
Sims reiterated a lot of people did not like the 30-day compromise.
Fred Walker, spoke about diverting water from the Poudre as part of two temporary substitute
supply plans, the City of Greeley and the Platte River Authority. He said it was a coordinated effort
and, based on the rules of how to submit, it has to be the end user who applies for the permit. Mr.
Walker stated this results in consternation for the end user and water boards because, if stock
owners within irrigation companies perceive things differently than the board does, it creates some
controversy within the ditch company itself. Mr. Walker said co-application may be a good
improvement in the future. He also spoke about interruptible supply plans, stating they are not too
viable on the part of agriculture, since $400 per acre foot represents about a 3 percent return on
the value of water being rented. There are also many fixed costs which have to be considered.
Manual Montoya, Farmers Reservoir Company, stated they have senior surface rights, and are,
therefore, viewed as objectors. He stated they understand the urgency for processing the
substitute supply plans, but they are also looking for a process of reviewing plans more quickly.
Mr. Montoya stated any deletions to the river have to be viewed on a one-to-one basis, since it
WATER BRIEFING
May 14, 2003
Page 11
comes out of someone's side. In the past they have been forced to integrate their system with
municipalities, and have had to file to protect their senior water rights in the Beebe Draw.
Butch Kirkun, Henrylynn Ditch Company, stated he helped carry petitions to form Central, and he
tried to get Central to file augmentation plans earlier. He stated there is a long ways to go, and we
need to remember senior water rights are going out of production for every one that is sold.
Richard Johnson, farmer, stated he sees water conservation efforts as he travels, and he wonders
why municipalities here don't use more effort at water conservation.
Harry Strohauer, farmer, stated he started this process back in the fall and if he can't pump his
wells for 30 to 50 days, he won't be here next year. He is still considering how to pursue this in a
timely fashion, which is what SB73 had set out to do in a three-year process; however, this year
it has pretty much been eliminated if everyone keeps going as they have been.
Commissioner Ament stated everyone better be filing a plan. That's the first thing that has to
happen, then go on through the process.
Andy Jones stated everyone in this room has an impact on the water community. All the parties
need to cooperate, look at reasonable plans, and address them in a timely fashion. He said the
reality is the parties in this room are working hard to prevent that from happening, and each one
needs to look at their individual role in that, and how to proceed in a manner that is best for all of
us.
Steven Jensen, Henrylynn Irrigation District, stated he is a water lawyer, and is one of the ones
filing oppositions to augmentation plans and comments on substitution supply plans. HB1414 was
passed without much controversy, and said if you filed in water court by the end of 2002, the State
Engineer would have continued authority to approve your plan for up to five years while you are
proceeding through Water Court. Central did file its augmentation plan in Water Court, however,
when Central filed its substitute supply plan they did not include the information that was clearly
required by the policy that the State Engineer had put out in July of 2002, including identifying all
the information needed in a substitute supply plan to determine whether the depletions were being
repaid in time, location, and amount. In April they finally received full information, and have not
made any comments opposing that plan since then. As a senior water right with interest in
agriculture,they have to protect their farmers and the entitlement they have. Henrylynn District was
created in 1907, and they have been paying taxes, and have been producers of agriculture, just
like well-operated farms. Mr. Jensen stated when they file opposition, they are not trying to put
anybody into a bind; they are only doing it to assure the same rules apply to everyone. SB73 was
a compromise; however, it was made clear to the Attorney General in January, that it would be
difficult to pass through legislature until they received assurance the compromise was fair to
everybody. (Changed to Tape#2003-19.)
Commissioner Jerke stated the Board made a point of trying to invite water leaders and community
leaders, hoping to look to the future. He questioned whether we are now ready to take this to the
next level by inviting the general public to talk about the issues of trying to deal with SB73, and
filing permanent augmentation plans. Butch Kirkun pointed out we may not want the general public
WATER BRIEFING
May 14, 2003
Page 12
to be asking questions that we don't have answers to; however, Commissioner Jerke stated he is
talking about four to five weeks from now, when we have more information.
Responding to Chair Long, Steve Sims said this type of meeting would not be helpful, as much as
one talking about those future issues such as supplemental insurance, and that waiting until fall
would not hurt.
Frank Eckhardt stated he agrees with Don Ament's comments and the longer this goes on, the
more it is costing Weld County farmers. Since the farmers are losing money every day, they need
to know as soon as possible how to move the process along.
Manual Montoya stated he would like to have the Commissioners and water community discuss
these issues, and that the meeting should expand this group to include water users.
Tom Cech suggested the Commissioners use the route of changing land use policies to
accommodate dust blowing, etc. for farms that go out of production.
Chair Long stated all the comments made tonight will be taken under advisement, and encouraged
anyone with further input to contact one of the Board members.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
AGENDA
WATER BRIEFING
MAY 14, 2003
Presentations:
J.. Tom Cech - Water 101
2. Steve Sims - S.B. 73
3. Jim Hall - State Engineer
,4/Jack Oder- G.A.S.P.
%Tom Cech - Central and Bonding for a New District
,N• Dr. Marshall Frasier and Dr. James Pritchett - CSU Economists
7.'Andy Jones - Weld County Well Users Association
.'Harold Evans - Municipal Interests
yAlan Berryman -Northern Conservancy District
Lee Morrison - Potential Land Use Changes
Don Ament -Legislators
c.
12. Q & A
13. Future
ATTENDANCE RECORD
HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS ON THIS 14TH DAY OF MAY, 2003:
*** BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WATER MEETING
PLEASE legibly write or print your name and complete address.
NAME ADDRESS
John Doe 123 Nowhere Street, City, State, Zip
GG
I��P •-k m wA-c-.V ✓ %o�;.n a ,l' k_l-cam.elAsyu. ( Lc) So= $6
47'10r.1-t 5 c_ (7/ 'Trl)!/Itl pra✓ 41)L--T.
/I eVe
/40 i//t '1/d L ��
130b kc& / V O , E X sob /Z/;1O-0") rc, 'oec
;4. k\\IA* Skae v C1)d p. c `c* Kklike,'()
C'; -/fecszt. 3e7yv ti,uc /7 C��t� c. / (en,; rows
-
O7 5b v 7 L 56-c ryfz�..s'e /
/ )J ((�` C / / 7
z� F-mss_ �Ca •-.�.u , c , / 11 �oG/;,-Lc
/if/1z4.7..,- //Y1,r �'C>� / iii:„ dttnn, .
2,risi:S �(�%bluer / -Thrim of 61;4/50 3o/4,44,laf3-.
jevezic,->
uetit':L,,yu> /f im /Wv , IA,A ^ �6
J Q o �on.St ,,.� 1/0O /0 St ee/e CV at' 3/
/741-014 eu�v�,s ma/ re-t4Jlei I�1 , Gr4-( I4a / Cc 8063V-
1
I
ATTENDANCE RECORD
HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS ON THIS 14TH DAY OF MAY, 2003:
*** BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WATER MEETING
PLEASE legibly write or print your name and complete address.
NAME ADDRESS
John Doe 123 Nowhere/__ Street, City,
State, Zip
5�2. 'ST ' S C`lU fl k 6 " --4A-- - iC
MK . Ccwc6 - C,f:ut.S.
Tc ! LiO &...Q.--(k.,,
e Y ✓ 'no- ,iii/12Pe
J Loa-Rex - S P lrit _ UJQ& use its asses .
C r\>Qv Qt A / 3 @ be b..'Pt
6O.. 4J c ,,}nor I Oo/sok 3373)-P Gzs_47-€2 70Cit? /gyp -SO
������////// ,n-i [ckPc5/e/ / �D !&)' 337.3f6 �r/vim //, L yon 3 3
AVez ,iiivotyf{ 4a VW ve Jr it sA,/e godv-s---
Dr kivu r_so v /3)/77 //wY X- ) 1,4d-invx c- mss/
liarty ctrO/-cctaer 1 /?<Q< i/c p Sf /a14//c Ga . c'c6 '3
Hello