Water Transfers in the West Efficiency, Equity, and the Environment (1992) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
6 Colorado Front Range-Arkansas River Valley: Interconnected Water Sources
6 Colorado Front Range-Arkansas River Valley: Interconnected Water Sources
Pages 137-161
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 137... ...
The Colorado Front Range-Arkansas River valley illustrates how complex the interconnections can be among water storage and delivery systems and between ground and surface water use. It also illustrates the strengths and weaknesses of robust water markets.
|
From page 138... ...
The most likely sources of water would seem to be the farming areas close to growing cities, but most of the water sought by cities such as Denver, its suburbs, and Colorado Springs has been from distant watersheds like the Colorado River basin and the Arkansas River valley. The pattern reflects the water rights system's incentives to claim and develop the resource as rapidly and fully as possible.
|
From page 139... ...
The results are uncertainty for both developers and affected parties, inefficient allocation of some water resources, excessive costs, and avoidable, uncompensated third party effects. THE SEWING The term Colorado Front Range refers to a 30- to 40-ml-wide (50to 60-km-wide)
|
From page 140... ...
into Kansas. The major water conservancy district in the Arkansas River basin is the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District (SCWCD)
|
From page 141... ...
>u Collins Denver JOEY 141 _____.__________ Colorado Nebraska Julesburg Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Colorado-Big Thompson Project ~08 ' - ~~ Southern Colorado Water G°~°~ ~ Denver C Conservancy District _— I, Springs Frying Pan-Arkansas Buena Vista Water Project pto~tia,ver -~5: ~ Salida City Area of Detail ^~9at°"FIGURE 6.1 Water conservancy districts in the Colorado Front Range.
|
From page 142... ...
The Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD) is the major water conservancy district in the South Platte River basin.
|
From page 143... ...
MAJOR WATER TRANSFER PROJECTS Colorado-Big Thompson Project and Windy Gap Project Two major transmountain diversion projects bring Colorado River water to the NCWCD the Colorado-Big Thompson (C-BT) Project and the Windy Gap Project.
|
From page 144... ...
CREDIT: Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Arkansas River Basin Projects More than a dozen transmountain diversion projects have been built to serve the Arkansas River basin, although none approach the size of the C-BT.
|
From page 145... ...
Dozens of different water service organizations operate hundreds of miles of canals, storage reservoirs, pumping facilities, and water treatment plants serving an area roughly the size of Connecticut. In the Arkansas River basin, water storage and delivery facilities are less sophisticated, and the opportunities for exchanging water among the many different and autonomous organizations are correspondingly more limited.
|
From page 146... ...
In normal years, agricultural water users in many conservancy districts are able to rent or purchase water from others within the same district as needed to mature a high-value crop if their own water supplies are limited. In some areas, such as the NCWCD, individuals entitled to use water in excess of crop needs in one year can rent water to someone else within the district who must simply complete and mail a postcard.
|
From page 147... ...
Data bases on water rights, water diversions, and control structures along the South Platte River are being developed, however, for use as decision-support systems by the state engineer and others. CURRENT WATER TRANSFERS AND WATER MARKETING Water marketing in northeastern and southeastern Colorado has differed in several important ways.
|
From page 148... ...
Participants in the Windy Gap Project share the responsibility for project costs and, in return, share the water supply. Owners of Windy Gap water can use their primary flow rights and then reuse or sell their return flow.
|
From page 149... ...
Proponents of the Windy Gap Project encountered several third party issues that had to be resolved. Because of the area-of-origin law that applies to projects developed by conservancy districts seeking to export water from the basin of the Colorado River, NCWCD was required to build a $10 million "compensatory storage reservoir" to make up for the water that would be exported.
|
From page 150... ...
of this water provided through the Twin Lakes Reservoir and Colorado Canal Company has been marketed. Twin Lakes Reservoir and Colorado Canal Company water is marketed by selling shares of mutual water stock; rights are divided into native flow and transmountain diversion water rights.
|
From page 151... ...
. The city was willing to pay a premium price for the BuskIvanhoe stock because it included transmountain diversion rights, which are both legally and hydrologically easier to transfer to the South Platte River basin than are native flow and storage rights in the Arkansas River, and which can be consumed (Saliba and Bush, 1987)
|
From page 152... ...
from the irrigation districts in the Arkansas River basin to Colorado Springs, (3) from the NCWCD to the city of Thornton, (4)
|
From page 153... ...
There is considerable local opposition in the San Luis Valley to the transfer because of the possible effects on existing water users and related socioeconomic impacts. The proposal is being reviewed in water court, where, as has already been noted, objections are confined to allegations of interference with water rights.
|
From page 154... ...
In many cases, the communities were in decline prior to the transfers, but transfers accelerated the process. In the Arkansas River basin, the population of the six rural counties of southeastern Colorado in 1930 was 68,576 and the population of Pueblo County was 66,038.
|
From page 155... ...
The court allowed community members to express their concerns at a hearing, but Colorado water law does not provide a basis for considering these types of concerns in reviewing a change in water use. Environmental Impacts I NSTREAM VALU ES Fish and wildlife habitat and riparian vegetation along the Arkansas and South Platte rivers have deteriorated during the past century.
|
From page 156... ...
Colorado has an instream flow program that allows the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) to appropriate rights to sufficient water "to preserve the natural environment to a reasonable degree." The program provides only limited protection for instream flows in the Arkansas and South Platte for a couple of reasons.
|
From page 157... ...
There is a need to improve the efficiency of the process and make it more accessible. In the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District the newer nonagricultural water users are intermingled with older agricultural users, and both are part of the district, so water transfers often are simplified.
|
From page 158... ...
5. The third party effects of water transfers need additional consideration in Colorado.
|
From page 159... ...
Several examples in this case study show how case-by-case negotiation works to resolve third party effects associated with transmountain diversions in Colorado. They include notably the Windy Gap and Two Forks projects.
|
From page 160... ...
The transfer of water within the NCWCD is a model for water transfers involving federal project water. The existence of the market for Colorado-Big Thompson Project shares and the ease of both short-term and long-term transfers of water provide an example of an efficient federal project water transfer system.
|
From page 161... ...
Boulder: University of Colorado, Natural Resources Law Center. ~ Groundwater Appropriators of the South Platte River Basin (GASP)
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.