News from the Water Front

It appears as though the SPCUP (South Park Conjunctive Use Project) Case is truely winding down. One could aptly say that after 6.5 years it is about time! Judge Hays' order of 5/01/03 set the amount of cost and fees applicable for recovery by the joint opposers in the case.
The total costs come to $1,251,178.42 and the recoverable fees total $1,339,610.20. (Correction of a clerical error in the fee award to the Colemans resulted in a reduction of $1,146.25) Aurora is immune from paying court costs being a Colorado municipality but they are subject to payment of attorney fees from the date the Case 96CW014 became groundless, October 28,1998.
Park County Sportsmen's Ranch (PCSR) was determined to be an agent in fact for Aurora so Aurora is jointly and severally responsible for the fees of their agent in the case. PCWPC (The Park County Water Preservation Coalition) was awarded total costs of $14,107.07 and fees totalling $133,977.95. Judge Hays' ruling on the dismissal of the case as well as his awarding of costs and fees against PCSR and Aurora have been appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court.
Opening briefs in the appeal are due on August 10, 2003. It seems likely that the Supreme Court will finally settle the SPCUP Case during the first quarter of 2004. Assuming the Supreme Court upholds the Water Court decision, the joint objectors could start seeking monetary recovery by May or June of 2004. Funds borrowed by PCWPC from the Center of Colorado Water Conservancy District to pay for legal representation will have to be repaid when and if costs are recovered from the applicants (PCSR and Aurora).

Hopefully the end result will be that PCWPC has helped to stop a bad water project, preserved tributary groundwater in eastern South Park, and set the stage for better cooperation on sensible future water use in Park County.

Gary and Joy Minke

Some things to consider when thinking about how to vote on Referendum A (The Dyer-Entz-Hoppe concept) this November.
The claim is that the $2 billion debt to fund future water projects "really won't cost tax payers a dime" because the sale of "new water" will eventually pay for the whole project. It sounds similar to the SPCUP that is now in appeal after 7 years of battle.
Aurora wanted 140,000 acre-feet of "free tributary groundwater" to be withdrawn from a full South Park aquifer and in 20 or 30 years the water would eventually be recharged if the scheme really worked. Buildng new reservoirs creates additional storage space in a water system that already has an abundance of empty or partially empty storage structures, but bringing "new water" to the Front Range ultimately means trans-mountain diversions.
It is true that poorly located shallow reservoirs could be replaced by better-located deeper reservoirs and that would be good. But be careful that the money ($2 billion) isn't spent on "cadillac reservoirs" that wait for the trans-mountain diversions to be approved so that there is water to put in them. Once the money is spent and the reservoirs exist we will still need that "new water" to sell to start repaying the loan or even the interest on the loan.
It is not necessarily true that if we build it (the big reservoir) they (in-priority acre-feet of water) will come. When there is $2 billion burning a hole in the pockets of politicians, you can bet that lots of ideas will quickly come forward on how to spend the money but how many of those ideas will actually produce the quick results (enough water to get Coloradoans through the next drought) that we all want?

Think about the sale of "new water" to begin repaying the debt. Are we talking about a benefit to the taxpayers who are already here putting up the ante, or is the benefit actually to future Coloradoans who will come if there is water available? Is the water to be used for sustaining a reasonably good life for Coloradoans now voting for the Referendum to go $2 billion in debt, or is it to fuel new growth in Colorado cities like Aurora? How will the "new water" be shared among the cities that need the water? "Turf wars" are a fact of life in Colorado or for that matter the entire American West.

There might really be 250,000 acre-feet per year of Colorado River water available for Colorado to use at its border with Utah, but can that much water really be taken out of the basin and sent to the Front Range? It is one thing to use water and return the non-consumptive portion to the river for use by downstream folks but to remove all the diverted water from the basin has profound effects. What will happen to Glen Canyon Dam and the power generation? Would the states of Nevada, Arizona, and California keep the "Big Straw Project" in courts for decades before any "new water" could be diverted into the "cadillac reservoir" to sell and begin repaying the loan?

Just some ideas to consider when you vote to go $2 billion in debt and it really won't cost you a dime.

Gary Minke