The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About981983.tiff RESOLUTION RE: OPPOSING BALLOT INITIATIVES BY STOCKMAN'S WATER COMPANY TO PLACE METERS ON ALL UNCONFINED AQUIFER WELLS AND TAX THE RIO GRANDE WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and WHEREAS, the retention of San Luis Valley water, in its confined and unconfined aquifers, is critical to the continued production of San Luis Valley agriculture industry, development of the San Luis Valley economy in general, and the wildlife ecosystem, and WHEREAS, the current ballot initiatives proposed by Stockman's Water Company to place well meters on all unconfined aquifer wells and to tax the Rio Grande Water Conservation District for water pumped out of the closed basin, appear to be obvious measures directed toward the diminished viability of agricultural, industrial, municipal, residential segments, and the coexistence with our wildlife in the San Luis Valley, and WHEREAS, the local economy, the agricultural industry, and wildlife ecosystem within the San Luis Valley of Colorado have been historically linked with interdependent interests. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that it supports the Citizens for Colorado's Water opposition to Stockman's current ballot initiates which are incompatible with the interests of Weld County and urges the defeat of said proposals at the forthcoming election. The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 14th day of October, A.D., 1998. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO ATTEST: �vD�•`` / f iQyi£7`w,2�z �S 7��zC� Constance L. Harbert, Chair Weld County Clerk tot B•: •;�vv ' r' 9 ,1. SLCt O .CA 1iJ l 7 W. H. bster; Prti-Te Deputy Clerk to theBY: _ 4 eo . Baxter A V O F RM: Dal K. Hall t t r J ?Zid_ arbara J. Kirkmeyer 981983 BC0026 C.C ' /'//amo5c �� MEMORANDUM/FAX TO: COLORADO COUNTY commisso FROM: ALAMOSA COUNTY . P.O.BOX 178 ArAMOSA,CO 81101 FAX NO: (719)589-1%0 SUBJECT: SAN LUIS VALLEY BAUM INPIIATNES t5 AND 16 DATE: 10/05/98 CC: A memo was sent to your previously regarding the San Luis Valley water and the Ballot I&&natives proposed to place well meters on all unconfined aquifer wells and to tax the Rio Grande Water Conservation District for water pumped out of the Closed Basin. Your support in passing a resolution in opposing these two ballot initiatives would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact me at (719) 589- 3841. THANKS. PRY - ti,a) ariThc9 JAckrut. RbcrY\cAti o Lk ft/W T1 � ` a itA0_0(‘K. .6eu\pnrw--1, - CtixTulsu,r (A , ry sting c rint\sgth 41AD . LOO 1,O,Voci u,)-M sk_Q0--1 -ttfuyi\ou uy-) '01-0, ar9 (3 csiLtAst &.n.)-e;nhk G �� th x/983 1 c`m 4 `� et� t~ L�/ LA AI ^' , _ ` RESOLUTION -' WHEREAS, the retention of San Luis Valley water, in its confined and unconfined aquifers, is critical to the continued production of San Luis Valley agriculture industry, development of the San Luis Valley economy in general,and the wildlife ecosystem; and WHEREAS, the current ballot initiatives proposed by Stockman's Water Company to place well meters on all unconfined aquifer wells and to tax the Rio Grande Water Conservation District for water pumped out of the closed basin, appears to be obvious measures directed toward the diminished viability of agricultural, industrial,municipal, residential segments, and the our co-existence with wildlife in the San Luis Valley;and WHEREAS,the local economy,the agriculture industry, and wildlife ecosystem within the San Luis Valley of Colorado have ken historically linked with inter- dependent interests. NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by supports the Citizens for Colorado's Water opposition to Stockman's current ballot initiatives which are incompatible with the interests of and urges the defeat of said proposals at the forthcoming election. DONE and SIGNED this day of , 1998. By ATTEST: 981983 FAX TRANSMISSION ALAMOSA COUNTY PO sox 17e ALAMOSA CO 81101 (7191539-304 I FAX. (7I 9)Sa9-1900 T4j . .„4/11.12-1- Date: 'O/91 Fax If: 170-352 Q34{)- Pages: I1 , including this cover sheet. From: ep�tjti— Subject: 6dIII-thsettitid COMMENTS: tuttd- 9%983 To: Fellow County Commissioners MEMORANDUM From: Darius Allen, Alamosa County Commissioner Subject: Ballot Initiatives Date: September 4, 1998 For your perusal, attached please find two ballot initiatives with an overview from water attorney, Bill Paddock and a resolution opposing the ballot initiatives. Ballot Initiative No. 75 deals with well flow meters and Ballot Initiative No. 105 wants to tax ground water pumping and use. Alamosa County along with the five counties in the San Luis Valley are opposed to these ballot initiatives. The initiatives will add an undue tax burden to the citizens as well as be a detriment to agriculture in the San Luis Valley. The San Luis Valley water is essential for the production of agricultural products and wildlife. Your support by adopting the resolution would be greatly appreciated. Please forward the adopted resolution at your earliest convenience to P. O. Box 178, Alamosa, CO 81101 or fax at (719)589-1900. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (719)589-3841, 9g/933 HUU-1S-'7e SMI 11:14 1 , Ill. I41:: n 1, Ny1 Paddock 1 o£ 9 Prepared by Bill Paddock. water attotnay Carlson, Haanond, 6 Paddock in Deroec Overview of Ballot Initiatives 1997-98 Nos. 75 and 105. These ballot initiatives are part of large scale effort to withdraw groundwater from the confined aquifer system in the San Luis Valley. As noted by the Colorado Supreme Court in Alprupsai,a tare Watts Users, 674 P.2d 914(CGI0. 1983), in 1912 the State Engineer stopped issuing well permits for new appropriations from the confined aquifer due to their impact on stream flows. The first large scale attempt to develop the confined aquifer after 1972 was that of American Water Development, Inc. rAWDI'). The 1986,AWDI filed an application to withdraw 200,000 acre feet annually from the confined aquifer synem for sale outside of Water Division No.3. After more than five years of pre-trial preparation and American asix week trial, the Water judge for Water Division No. 3 denied AWOI's Application. Water Developmepyny.v. City of Alamnaa 674 P.2d 352(Colo. 1994). AWDI subsequently sold its land and other assets in the San Luis Valley and satisfied the withdraw 150,0 eno against acre feet nnnuallyyfrom the confined aquifer systesor, Stockmans Water Company, for sateproposes outside of ro Water Division No.3. Much of the impetus for development of groundwater from the confined aquifer system Is based upon the claims that large amounts of non-beneficial evapotranspiration can be'salvaged.' To address this and other questions, in 1997 the Colorado Water Conservation Board decided to accelerate the development of its Rio Grande Decision Support System rRGDSS") to obtain better information on how confined aquifer system development affects surface streams in Water Division No. 3 and Colvradc the Colora alailio/to do meet its Rio Grande Compact obligations. Based upon a feasibility study, in Water Conservation Board requested and received initial funding for data collection and development of the ROSS through Section 5, H.B. 98.1189. In 1999 the Colorado General Assembly also passed H.B. 99-1011.That bill has three principle components. First it provides that in the issuance of well permits that affect the confined aquifer system in Water Division No. 3.the State Engineer shall recognize that unappropriated water Is not made available and injury is not prevented by the reduction of evapotranspiration by non-Irrigated native vegetation. Second, it calls upon the State Engineer, using the data developed as part of the RCDSS, to adopt rules and regulations by July, 2001 for the future use of confined aquifer system. Third, It requires the water judge to retain jurisdirilon over any plans for augmentation for confined aquifer system wells to ensure they conform with rules to be adopted by the State Engineer. When it became apparent to Stockman Water Company that its substantial effort;to remove Section 5 from H.S. 99.1139 and to defeat H.B.98-1111 would not succeed, it abandon the legislative process and began a campaign of ballot initiatives aired at wirer users in the San Luis Valley. The proponent of the ballet initiatives are James Brandon, • 92/983 faJG-15-'96 SAT 11:14 t0: TEL IC: 0006 Pat Paddock 2 of 9 tegistered lobbyist for Stockmans Water Company and Mr.John Berry,an attorney acting on behalf of Stockman*Water Company. The apparent purpose for these ballot initiatives is end operation of the Closed Basin Project, destroy the established water use institution and arrangements based upon the Closed Basin Project, cause renewed litigation between water users in the Valley,and thereby make it easier for Stockman's Water Company to pursue its confined aquifer system development program. The Closed Basin Project is located on the east side of the San Luis Valley on and near the lands owned by Stockman's. Its water development project would seriously injure the Closed Basin Project Thus,for.its project to succeed it must eliminate the Closed Basin Project. That is the purpose of Initiative 1997-98 No. 105, initiative No. 75 is one of fourteen other initiatives filed by Stockman's. Its sole purpose appears to burden farmers and other water users with a water metering expense that is not required at any other location in the state and requires the use of a technology that has been shown to be often ineffective and cosdy in the San Luis Valley. Other less costly and equally reliable measurement methods have been approved by the State Engineer for use in other parts of the state, Including the Arkansas River Basin. BALLOT INITIATIVE 1997-98 NO. 73 (Well Flow Meters) Ballot Initiative No. 75 is an attempt to unnecessarily burden unconfined aquifer groundwater users in the San Luis Valley by requiring that the wells be equipped with a functional flow meter certified by the State Engineer and read monthly by the Sate Engineer at the well owners'expense. it requires the State Engineer to prevent the operation of any well that is found not to have a functioning flow meter until such time as a functioning flow meter is installed and certified by the State Engineer at the well owners expense. All wells must have the flow meter installed by April 1, 1999, or the well cannot be operated. The State and Division Engineer's office do not have the staff or the resources to inspect all such wells before April 1, 1998,even if all meters could be installed by then. There is no ether similar requirement for well meters in any water division within the state. in fact, in the Arkansas River Basin the groundwater measurement rules and regulations of the State Engineer allow the use of electrical power usage to be used to determine well pumping rather than relying on well flow meters. The reason for this is the notorious unreliability of well flow meters and the fact that sand particles pumped by many irrigation wells destroy or disable well flow meters in a short period of time. These meters Cost between S750 and $1250 and there replacement is very cosily, 98i 913 AUG-15-'9% SIT 11:14 t:: TE_ N0: x106 PF13 •• Paddock 3 o£ 9 The apparent punitive nature of this measure is shown by the fact that the flow mews must be read monthly by the State Engineer at the well owned expense and that replacement meters must be installed and cerrofied by the State Engineer at the well owners expense. This imposes not only a substantial monetary obligation on the well owners but also a substantial monetary obligation and administrative burden en the Division of Water Resource, Office of the State Engineer. No other water division of the State is subject to such requirements. In addition, none of the revenue generated by this measure will go towards the cost of the required inspection and well meter reading. Those revenues are in excess of the revenue limits of the TABOR Amendment and therefore must be refunded by the State for the foreseeable future. Thus, the funds for this added responsibility of the office of the State Engineer will have to come from other programs because there will be no new revenue to the State to offset the increased casts. INITIATIVE 1997-98 NO. 105 (Tax on Groundwater Pumping and Use) This ballot initiative proposes a constitutional amendment to tax the exercise of the tributary water right for the Closed Basin Project. That water right was lawfully appropriated under Article XVI, §§S and 6 of the Colorado Constitution. The water rights for the Closed Basin Project were decreed to the Rio Grande Water Conservation District on April 21, 1980, by the District Court for Water Division No. 3,Case No. W3038. Closed Basin Landowner Assn V. Rio Grande Water Cansen ation District, 734 P.3d 627(Colo. 1987). The decree awarded a conditional water right for tributary groundwater in the amount of 117,000 acre- feet annually through the operation of approximately 127 wells located en some 170 square - miles of land in Water Division No.3. To date, the maximum annual production of the Closed Basin Project has not exceeded 43,000 acre-feet Federal law establishes the following priorities of use of Closed Basin Project water: (1) To assist in making the annual delivery of water at the gaging station on the Rio Grande near Lobatos, Colorado, as required by Article ill of the Rio Grande Compact(limited to an average of 60,000 acre-feet per year); (2) To maintain the Aiamosa National Wildlife Refuge ant: the Bianca Wildlife Habitat Area by provision of up to 5,300 acre-feet annually; (3) For irrigation and other beneficial uses in Colorado provided a repayment contract far such water is in place. 3 9P983 A G-15 '9e SAT 11:15 ID: TEL NO: srt7e6 Pao Paddock 4 of 9 The initiative proposes a 530.00 per acre-foot tax On all waterek,tc pumped pursuant to the decree from beneath State Trust Lands in Water Division No. 3. it also requires a 510.03 per acre-foot tax be paid to the school districts in Water Division No.3 for the water that is requited m meet the yearly requirements found in P.(„ 92-514(Closed Basin Project Authorizing Legislation). The Oi,rrict Is required to pay this tax and to assess those irrigators with water rights in the Rio Grande, in proportion to their water right, an amount equal to the amount used and attributable cc the water pumped (corn beneath State Trust Lands. The tar is both prospective and retrospective and may fall most heavily on irrigators taking water;torn the Rio Grande. The repoactive fiscal impact of the initiative is estimated to be as high as.58,061,060 for the Stare School fund and 52,687,000 for local school district, The failure to pay these sums within thirty days results In an interest itharge of eighteen percent per annum. These tie;are in excess of the TABOR Amendment spending limits and therefore, most of the money collected would have to be refunded. The refund would apparently be returned to all taxpayers in the state, not the water users in Water Ohiaion No.3 forced to pay the tax. The initiadve would result in multiple taxation of water users because it imposes a levy directly against them and will result in increased taxation on their land by the District In order to meet its financial obligations under the proposed initiative. The enormity of the potential tax contemplated by this initiative is well beyond the financial means of mast irrigators and the large retroactive liability will Certainly force many Irrigators Out of business. Those who survive may not have the financial resources to protect their water rights from Stockman's water development pions. It goes without saying that the District does not have the financial resources to pay this tax. The enormity of the tax shows it to be a thinly-veiled attempt to bankrupt the District and to make operation of the Closed Basin Project unaffordable. The loss of water from the Closed Basin Project will Isaae profounc effects on water righs and water users in Water Division No. 3. • One suds effect may be renewed (ideation over groundwater regulation and Compact administration. In 1985 water users in Water Division No. 3 negotiated an agreement to eliminate die need for continued lisgation over then-existing junior groundwater diversions impacting the flows of the Rio Cranes and Conejos Rivers. That agreement is part of the •Resolution Regarding the Allocation of the Yield of the Closed Basin Project."(the'Aliocadon Resolution'). In exchange for a permanent allocation cf that portion of the Closed Basin Project water dedicated by federal law to meet Colorado's annual obligation under the Rio Grande Compact the surface water users on the Rio Grande, Conejos, and A'amesa-La Jam Rivers agreed to waive all claims against existing use by wells located within the boundaries 952i9r 3 AUG-15-'9E SAT :1:16 ID: TEL 10: a0046 P05 . • Paddock 5 of 9 of the Rio Grande Water Conservation District for alleged effects on the discharge of those surface streams. This agreement remains in effect only so long as the Closed Basin Project produces an average of 25,000 acre-feet per year over any consecutive ten-year period_ Another effect will be renewed litigation over Rio Grande Compact administration. !n 1991, a Memorandum of Understanding(he'MOU'1 was entered into between the Colorado State Engineer(and Colorado's Commissioner on the Rio Grande Compact Commission), the Conejos Water Conservancy District, and the Rio Grande Water Users Association. The MOW resolves difficult que:-tions of Compact administration including aiocaton of allowable credits and debits and intrastate accounting for the State's Rio Grande Compact obligation as between the Rio Grande and Conejos River. The MOU has enabled Compact administration to go forward without renewed litigation. The MOU is predicated, in part on the Allocation Resolution. If the Allocation Resolution is terminated, then the MOU may also be terminated, 5 q�i9J3 fMJG-L5-19e SAT 11:17 ID: TEL NO: OZ06 P06 Paddock 6 of 9 ; 1 Well Water Flow Meters initiative 1997.98 No. 75 The proposed amendment to the Colorado Revised Statutes: - Requires the installation of a water meter on large capacity unconfined aquifer wells in the San Luis Valley by April 1, 1999. • Requires the water meters to be installed at the well owners expense and Certified and read by the State Engineer • Prohibits the operation of any affected well that does not have a functioning water meter. Affected wells in the San Luis Valley. This proposal affects wells that pump water from any unconfined aquifer in the San Luis Valley. Water meters would be required to be installed on wells that use water from this aquifer This proposal does not apply to wells used for residential or fire fighting purposes, or small commercial and stock wells. Approximately 3,500 weils in the San Luis Valley would to affected by this proposal, and approximately 90 percent of these well are used for irrigation. many farmers own between 13 and 18 • irrigation wells. Most well users in the San Luis Valley have rights that are junior to most surface water users on the Rio Grande and Conejos River. Unless replacement water is provided, pumping by some wells In the San Luis Valley can prevent surface water users on the Rio Conde and Conejos River and their tributaries from receiving their full share of water. Accordingly, the owners of most wells existing on or before January 1985 deliver replacement water to the Ric ' Grande and Conejos River to prevent loss of water to senior water user. This is done pursuant to the Allocation Resolution that governs water produced by the Closed Basin Project In 1981, the State Engineer placed a moratorium on new well permits for waver in this aquifer because the reliable long-term water supply may not be enough to satisfy the well permits that have already been granted. New wells are permitted only to replace or relocate existing wells or if a new well does not change the water available to other users. This proposal will cost the stare approximately 5864.000 annually without providing additional revenue. Although fees will be collected by the state for certifying and reading the meters, the constitution limits the abil;ty of the state to spend this revenue. Currently, the state is at its spending limit and it is projected ea remain above the limit ter at least four more years. As long as the state is at Its spending limit new revenue from the well N It-1Y'9h SMI 1111E MI: TEL. M: 0006 P07 Paddock 7 of 9 owners must be refunded to the state taxpayers. Therefore, money to fund the program will come front other stare needs, This proposal Is unnecessary because current law and administrative and agricultural practices protect senior water rights in the San Luis Valley. The State Engineer has the authority to monitor wells, irrigation systems, and crop production to ensure that existing wells do not pump more than allowed. He may also shut down wells that are pumping more water than allowed or do not have a permit Individuals may bring suit against well owners for excessive pumping and the court may award money to compensate for damages. In addition, more efficient water management, irrigation Modals, and agreements between water users have made water conflicts less likely. Due to these changes, the existing water users are protected from additional loss of water. This proposal is unfair because: 1) It imposes a significant financial burden on well owners through meter purchase and replacement costs, meter-reading costs, and the potential for crop loss. Each water meter costs between 5700 and 51300. High levels of sand in water pumped by wells in the San Luis Valley damage meters and require frequent meter replacement Crop watering schedules are critical and if a water meter fails,crops may die before a replacement an be installed and inspected. 2) It does not allow the use of other less costly, court-approved methods for measuring well production, 3) It requires well owners to install water meters within five months. This leaves little time for inspection of the approximately 3,500 wells in the area. Because farmers are not allowed to operate their well until the meter is inspected, they may miss the San Luis valleys short growing season. 4) It does nor apply to all large-capacity wells. This means some well owners must bear the expense of well meters while other well owners using just as much water are not required to install meters. 2 98, 9g3 PUG-15-'98 SAT 11:1@ ID: TEL NCH teg6 aee Paddock I of 9 PAYMENTS BY CONSERVATION DISTRICT FOR WATER PUMPED BY THE CLOSED BASIN PROJECT Inidadve 1997-98 No. 1 as The proposed amendment to the Colorado Constitution: • Requires the Rio Grande Water Conservation District to pay S40 per acre- foot for water that the district owns and pumps from beneath state trust land in the San Luis Valley. • requires payment for water that has been pumped from beneath state trust lands since 1987; • requires that the 540 be divided as follows: 330 to the state's Public School Fund and St 0 to school districts in the San Luis valley; ▪ requires users of surface water from the Rio Grande to pay the fee. • requires that delinquent payments be assessed an 18 percent annual interest rate; and • prohibits the Colorado General Assembly from considering these payments when determining the state's aid to public schools in the San Luis Valley, Water beneath state trust lands. This proposal requires the district and irrigators who use surface water to pay for water that is pumped from beneath state trust lands as part of.the Closed Basin Project, a federai water reclamation project. The purposes of the project are to save water that would otherwise evaporate, to assist Colorado in meeting its legal obligations to deliver water to New Mexico and Texas under the Rio Grande_ Compact, to supply water to a national wildlife refuge and a wildlife habitat area, and, if excess water is available, to supply water to irrigators in the San Luis Valley. The federal government pays most of the costs of operation of the project In Colorado,water is not owned until it is appropriated and beneficially used. The appropriation and ownership of the water right for the Closed cuin Project was granted by the Colorado water court to the Rio Grande Water Conservation District The state cf Colorado never appropriated and does not own the water beneath its trust land in the San Luis Valley and therefore has not received compensation for the use of water it does not own. This initiative converts a water right held by the District into an asset of the state of Colorado school trust lands and retroacs:ely taxes water users in the San Luis Valley for the use of this water. 9y/9g3 aG-15-'90 SAT 11:19 ID: TEL MO: - Raa6 P09 ._. • Paddock 9 of 9 • This initiative is unfair because: 1) It will not provide more money for schools. The money paid by the District will be in excess of the TABOR Amendment limitation for at least four to five years. • Therefore, most of the money paid by the District will have to be refunded to taxpayers, but probably not to just the taxpayers who paid the fees. To make the refund,money must be taken away from other state programs. The General Assembly will decide the source of money for the refund and could do so by reducing other sources of funding for public schools. 2) It imposes a significant retroactive financial burden on water users in the San Luis Valley. The irrigators affected by this proposal will be required to pay approximately$1.2 million annually with a one-time payment of$5.6 million for water pumped prior to 1998. None of these irrigators ever contracted to buy water from the project or to pay for any water pumped by the project. Irrigators who are unable to pay these costs may be forced out of business. 3) The required payment is four times the market rate for irrigation water in the San Luis Valley. Water from the Closed Basin Project may become too expensive to use and the project may stop its pumping. Without these waters, the state may be forced to shut off water righu that have existed since the 'I890's to ensure that enough water remains in the Rio Grande and its tributaries to meet Colorado's obligation to downstream states required by the Rio Grande Compact. 4) Without the water from the Closed Basin Project the allocation resolution will be terminated resulting In ground water regulation and renewed litigation over compact administration and ground water regulation. 5) Irrigators must pay the Public School Fund to use water that is not owned by the state as part of the trust lands. All other revenues collected by the trust are from asset owned by the trust, 6) This proposal appears to require that only 60 percent of the irrigators who benefit from the projects water pay the entire fee. The remaining 40 percent or irrigators who benefit from these waters would pay nothing. 7) Currently, the revenue (rem state trust lands is distributed equally among all school districts in the state, under this measure, school districts In the San Luis Valley will receive more of the money from char fund than other schools in the ≥rate. 2 9l/9Y3 Hello