May 5, 2016
Jack Goble, P.E., Engineer
Jay Winner General Manager
Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District
801 Swink Avenue Rocky Ford, CO 81067
RE:
APPROVAL OF LAVWCD’S AND FORT LYON RULE 10 ASSOCIATION’s IRRIGATION
IMPROVEMENT RULES COMPACT COMPLIANCE PLAN APPLICATION FOR 2016-17 PLAN YEAR
(APPROVED THROUGH APRIL 30, 2017) FORT LYON STRUCTURES
Dear Jack Goble and Jay Winner:
We have reviewed your March 10, 2016 Application on behalf of the Lower Arkansas Valley
Water Conservancy District (LAVWCD) and the Fort Lyon Rule 10 Association for a COMPACT
COMPLIANCE PLAN (“PLAN”) for the 2016 Plan Year (May 1, 2016 through April 30, 2017) pursuant
to the COMPACT RULES GOVERNING IMPROVEMENTS TO SURFACE WATER IRRIGATION SYSTEMS IN THE
ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN IN COLORADO (“Irrigation Improvement Rules”) approved in Case No.
09CW110. The Application was provided to the Division of Water Resources Notification List on
March 10, 2016.
Comments were submitted by Bishop-Brogden Associates (BBA) on behalf of Tri-State
Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. All comments have been considered as part of this
review.
A.
Number of Farms/Improvements Covered by the 2016 Plan:
Your Application is for 144 improvements to irrigation systems on 99 farms.
B.
Quantity of Return Flow Deficits and Maintenance Flow Obligations:
The results of a final year of pond seepage study conducted subsequent to a stipulation
between the Smith Mutual Ditch Company, the Clover Meadow Lateral Company and the State
Engineer entered in case 09CW110 were provided by LAVWCD in a report dated January 7, 2016.
This stipulation requires study participants to operate the meters for two years after the study…to
verify that the conclusions about pond seepage from the study remain reasonably consistent with
metered data. The findings of the study, conducted during the 2013, 2014 and 2015 irrigation
seasons, indicated that median pond seepage occurred at a rate of 0.35 feet per day. This result
can be contrasted with the original assumption based in the ISAM Model of 0.167 feet per day and
the interim value used in the 2015-16 Plan of 0.23 feet per day.
Total estimated reduction in return flows, taking into consideration the higher pond seepage
rate, pond days full calculated as 88*monthly diversion/average annual diversions (1950-2015)
limited by days in month (with 15 days in March and November) and evaporation based on “shallow
lake” adjustments, for which maintenance flows are to be provided under this Plan during the 201617 Plan Year was estimated by you as a net accretion of 504 acre-feet, with small positive stream
deficits in some months that must be mitigated by maintenance flows. Actual deficits and
maintenance flow obligations under the Plan will be determined via the monthly accounting and
Office of the State Engineer
1313 Sherman Street, Suite 818  Denver, CO 80203  Phone: 303-866-3581  Fax: 303-866-3589
www.water.state.co.us
actual conditions. This quantity does include maintenance obligations resulting from the lagged
impact of improvement operations which occurred under prior years’ Plans.
Additional return flow deficits beyond what will occur during this Plan Year will occur after
the April 30, 2017 expiration date of this Plan due to diversions of surface water supplied to the
improvements during the Plan Year. Maintenance of these return flows must also be accomplished
under this Plan, as further described in the terms and conditions below.
C.
Timing and Location of Return Flow Deficits and Maintenance Flow
Obligations:
The location and timing of reductions in return flow anticipated to occur at the Arkansas
River in all reaches, as well as on the Wiley, Pleasant Valley, and May Valley drains from the Fort
Lyon service area, has also been calculated using the ISAM Model as defined in the Irrigation
Improvement Rules.
The tailwater return flows are assumed to occur in the same month as farm headgate
deliveries. The timing and location of the deep percolation portion of the return flow reductions was
modeled using either the Ground Water Accounting Model (GWAM) or a Glover model.
D.
Dedicated Source for the Required Maintenance Flow Deliveries:
LAVWCD will use 1,500 acre-feet of water available from Fryingpan Arkansas and Pueblo
Board of Water Works agricultural return flows from past and anticipated ditch deliveries in 2016
and 2017. In addition, LAVWCD has stored water in its “If & When” account in Pueblo Reservoir to
provide for maintenance of return flows for this Plan and a separate Rule 10 Plan for improvements
under the Fort Lyon Canal that can be delivered to make up any shortage resulting after accounting
for agricultural return flow accretions from Fry-Ark and PBWW sources. This water can be released
from Lake Meredith Reservoir or from Pueblo Reservoir.
Additional sources that are available to the Plan include Busk-Ivanhoe return flows from 2013
and 2015 deliveries to ditch headgates and additional PBWW leased water.
This office has determined that the projected supply from this source is adequate,
appropriate and sufficiently reliable to maintain the reduced return flows (including associated
transit losses, which must be provided with each maintenance flow delivery) that have been
estimated for this Plan Year, based on the assumptions shown above.
E. Responses to Remaining Comments:
The responses below pertain to comments not specifically addressed elsewhere in this letter:
Bishop-Brogden Associates (BBA) noted the significant change in projected
return flow deficits with the proposed implementation of the higher pond
seepage rates included (projection actually showed a net accretion of 639 acrefeet in the initial submittal.) Revisions to portions of the 2015 modeling that
inadvertently included the higher median seepage rate, but should have only
included the lower interim seepage rate, resulted in a reduction in the amount of
accretion, but still showed a net annual accretion of 504 acre-feet. BBA
continues to work with LAVWCD and has asked, in light of the significance of
pond seepage contributions to return flow maintenance, that the accounting
include additional detail to quantify that contribution. BBA also asked that the
2|Page
LAVWCD Fort Lyon Rule 10 Plan 2016-17
MATLAB modeling tool provide additional output of water budget components
for pre- and post- improvement cases to facilitate individual farm review for all
future submittals.
The State and Division Engineers believe this issue can best be addressed by
collaboration between LAVWCD, the Fort Lyon Rule 10 Association, BBA
engineers and the Division Engineer’s staff as has successfully occurred to refine
the accounting procedures to date.
F. Determination:
The State and Division Engineers have reviewed the Plan and the adequacy of the sources of
water provided to maintain return flows, including, where necessary, the appropriateness for
delivery to each impacted location. The State and Division Engineers have determined that, subject
to the terms and conditions set forth below, the approved Compact Compliance Plan will prevent a
violation of Article IV-D of the Arkansas River Compact for the improvements covered by this Plan.
This PLAN is hereby approved pursuant to the following TERMS AND CONDITIONS:
1) The 99 farms with improved irrigation systems in this PLAN as listed in Enclosure 1
may be operated as described in this Plan.
2) The attached maps at Enclosure 2 show the location of systems covered by the Plan.
3) Systems covered by this Plan that have not yet been installed have been mapped in Enclosure
2 as if they had already been built. Owners of these systems must provide notice to LAVWCD
and the Division Engineer upon installation of the systems so that the improved acreage can be
confirmed to be consistent with the Plan approval.
4) No system may be included unless it receives surface water as some portion of its supply. All
systems included in the Plan have been confirmed to receive surface water by LAVWCD.
5) Approval of this Plan does not give LAVWCD any rights of use of Fryingpan-Arkansas Project
structures, or any rights of ownership or rights to purchase or receive an allocation of Project
water or return flows therefrom and will not alter any existing rights LAVWCD may have.
6) LAVWCD’s purchase and use of Project water and of return flows therefrom shall be consistent
with the Allocation Principles of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District (as they
may from time to time be amended), and the lawful rules, regulations, policies, procedures,
contracts, charges and terms as may be lawfully determined from time to time by Southeastern,
in its sole discretion. Project water or return flows therefrom may be used as a supplemental
supply in LAVWCD’s Plan only if, and to the extent such water is allocated by Southeastern to
this Plan, and is purchased from Southeastern.
7) Project water or return flows therefrom shall not be used for maintenance of return flows from
historical irrigation use of any changed water rights, unless such use of Project water or return
flows therefrom is specifically approved by Southeastern’s Board of Directors. Any use of
Fryingpan-Arkansas Project water or structures under this Plan must be in compliance with the
Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District’s water allocation principles, including the
limit that it may only be used to maintain return flows from improvements located within the
3|Page
LAVWCD Fort Lyon Rule 10 Plan 2016-17
Southeastern District’s boundaries. The Plan is in compliance and must remain so.
8) A pond seepage factor of 0.35 feet per day will be applied during the 2016-17 Plan Year and
may be allowed on an ongoing basis for future renewals of this Plan. In addition to use of the
median seepage value, all other implementation elements discussed in the Memorandum of
review of the pond study report (pond days full, evaporation, ISAM limit removal) dated March
9, 2016 shall be incorporated in the modeling and accounting for the Plan, subject to the
following conditions:
(a) In lieu of the requirement to maintain metering/measuring devices on the pond
study ponds for two additional years, the Plan Members must cooperate to allow
the Division Engineer to conduct pond fill tests (as described in the second
paragraph in the Discussion - Implementation of Pond Study Results section of
the March 9, 2016 Memorandum cited above) if these tests can be coordinated in
a manner to be non-damaging to the Member’s farming operations.
(b) The Division Engineer or his staff shall be granted access to conduct soil probe
tests on ponds on a random basis to confirm that no lining, soil amendment or
undue buildup of silt and sediment has occurred. The consequence of any
intentional alterations to the physical characteristics of a pond made with the
apparent intention of reducing pond seepage through lining, addition of clay or
similar soil additives or chemical treatments detected by means of probe tests
will be to not allow any pond seepage credit unless demonstrated by means of
measurements which conform with the Division 1 Administration Protocol for
Recharge nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8 (Enclosure 3).
(c) By December 31, 2020 the Applicant/Members must either propose a verification
study to confirm that the median pond seepage rate and other assumptions
derived from the 2013-15 Pond Study remain valid for use in the accounting of
return flows and obtain the State Engineer’s approval for the proposed study to
be conducted beginning in the 2021-22 irrigation season or propose a means of
measurement or testing acceptable to the State Engineer to be used to
determine the actual seepage rate of ponds used in connection with surface
water irrigation system improvements beginning in the 2021-22 irrigation
season.
(d) Should any systematic change in head stabilization pond design and construction
or operation occur, not consistent with practices exhibited during the pond study
(for example implementation of incentives to reduce ground water flows for
water quality benefits), the Applicant/Members agree that the fundamental
assumptions must be cooperatively revisited with the Division Engineer.
9) Additional irrigation systems and/or additional sources of water for maintenance flows may be
included in this Plan only if an amendment to the approved Plan is submitted, circulated with
time for comments as required the Rules, and approved. Any request for amendment must
include, at a minimum: identification of the subject improved system(s) including detailed
historical and improved mapping and number of ditch shares used on the farm; an estimate of
the amount of return flow deficit and return flow maintenance water for each system; an update
4|Page
LAVWCD Fort Lyon Rule 10 Plan 2016-17
of the total estimated return flow replacement by reach and month including post–Plan return
flow maintenance; and identification of the source of additional return flow maintenance water.
Approval of an amendment will be contingent upon LAVWCD demonstrating it has sufficient
return flow maintenance water to cover the additional return flow deficits caused by added
systems.
10) In compliance with Rule 10.A, a copy of the form required by Rule 8.A, signed by the owner
or user of the surface water irrigation system or his or her Designated Agent, must be
maintained on file by LAVWCD for each improvement covered under the Plan and available for
inspection by the Division Engineer.
11) LAVWCD will maintain return flows for deficits occurring after the expiration date of the Plan
(April 30, 2017) caused by deliveries of surface water to the improvements during the life of
the Plan and in previous Plan Years. To guarantee that sufficient return flow maintenance water
will be provided to maintain historical return flows, LAVWCD agrees to commit a sufficient
amount of water from appropriate sources, with notice to the Division Engineer, by no
later than April 1, 2017.
12) LAVWCD will coordinate with Division of Water Resources staff on monthly accounting by the
10th day of each month. Monthly return flow obligations and monthly deliveries of
maintenance flows, minus transit losses, will be reflected in each of the mainstem river
reaches of the GWAM and to each to the three tributary drains. Additionally, LAVWCD will rely
on and make available on request accounting for PBWW, Busk-Ivanhoe and Fry-Ark return
flow used as a maintenance source in this Plan as tracked by PBWW and the Division Engineer
respectively.
13) Credits and deficits may only be carried forward one month, except that the maintenance
flows for November through March may be combined into one delivery in March.
14) Water stored by LAVWCD in Pueblo Reservoir and Lake Meredith may include transmountain
water stored from deliveries of the Larkspur Ditch. The Larkspur Ditch water can only be used
for irrigation unless pursuant to an approved SWSP per Case No. 2011CW77. No deliveries for
return flow maintenance may occur unless pursuant to this provision. Additionally, water from
Colorado Canal shares not yet converted pursuant to the Colorado Canal change decree, may
not be used for return flow maintenance in this Plan.
15) LAVWCD will also provide an annual accounting to the Division Engineer of the actual
operations under the Plan conducted by May 20, 2017. It shall include the change in
historical seepage losses and return flows by month from each improvement covered under
the Plan and the amount, time, and location of all water provided under the Plan to maintain
historical seepage losses and return flows, as well as the projected monthly operations under
the Plan for the upcoming year.
16) LAVWCD will promptly report to the Division Engineer’s Office any lack of compliance by the
member systems in this Plan. LAVWCD will monitor the overall performance of this Plan by
comparing the approved operational conditions with the actual conditions, after determining the
actual conditions in cooperation with the Division Engineer’s Office.
17) In accordance with paragraph 2 of Lower Ark’s stipulation in Case No. 09CW110 (“Stipulation”),
5|Page
LAVWCD Fort Lyon Rule 10 Plan 2016-17
this is the last year in which the State Engineers Office (“SEO”) will allow the return flow
maintenance requirement (“RFMR”) be replaced to the mainstem of the Arkansas River instead
of directly to the tributary drains. Additionally, the improved acreage thresholds in the Wiley,
Pleasant Valley, and May Valley drainages (described in paragraph 2.b.(i) of the Stipulation)
have been reached, requiring replacement to the tributary drains or accommodation to users in
the sub-basins. The Division Engineer has determined that, based on applying the seepage
factor to be used for this Plan, and based on available fully consumable agricultural return flows
to the drains, it is appropriate to review any occurrence of return flow deficit to a drain during a
time when the water rights on that drain are in-priority to operate on a case by case basis and
will not require additional delivery to any of the drains at this time.
18) Acceptance of these conditions and any questions regarding these conditions must be made in
writing to the Division Engineer ([email protected], 310 East Abriendo, Suite B, Pueblo CO
81004, FAX (719) 544–0800) by 5:00 p.m. on May 15, 2016. Failure to provide written
acceptance by May 15, 2016 will result in these conditions being deemed accepted.
I want to thank you for your cooperation and efforts to coordinate with farmers, our office and
the Colorado Water Conservation Board in preparing this Compact Compliance Plan. The farmers
involved in this Plan that are moving towards the transition to self operation of the Plan is also
acknowledged and applauded. Your efforts are greatly appreciated. If you have any questions,
please do not hesitate to contact any of my staff in Pueblo.
Sincerely,
Dick Wolfe
Director of Water Resources
State Engineer
3 Enclosures
C:
Steve Witte, Division Engineer
Dan Steuer, Attorney General’s Office
Leah Martinsson
Kevin Salter
Dale Book
Lonnie Spady WD 17/67 Water Commissioner
Rebecca Nichols WD 67 Water Commissioner
Notification List by Email
FILE: LAVWCD Fort Lyon Plan – 2016 PLAN Year
6|Page
2016 Compact Compliance Plan
For
Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District
Fort Lyon Plan
Enclosure 1:
Summary of Surface Water Systems Included in Plan
Enclosure 1 - Rule 10 Plan Member Report
Farm
Ditch Name:
Flood Acres
Sprinkler Acres
Drip Acres
Lateral Acres
Canal Shares
FT LYON
Cline, Stan
153
19.7
121
0
0
160
83
37.5
94.6
0
0
162
85
220
61.9
112.4
235
445
0
0
0
0
144.8
400
198
52.4
125.1
0
0
200
133
19.2
225.8
0
0
435
110
200
30.6
55.9
117.6
80.9
0
0
0
0
288
233.5
54
211
73.4
32.9
59
72
0
0
0
0
144
114
174
175
86.1
24.9
118.1
120.3
0
0
0
0
192.8
144
60
174
194.4
0
0
303
166
18.1
110
0
0
144
113
32.1
118.9
0
0
172
115
103.9
92.4
0
0
210
Coen, Brady
Coen, Monty & Janalyn
Earl Living Trust
Findley, David
Gardner, David
Hemphill, Phillip
Hemphill, Ryan
Kasza, Joe & Kaye
Mayhew, Ben
Reyher, Katheryn
Root, Garold
Monday, May 02, 2016
Page 1 of 6
Farm
116
Flood Acres
19.6
Sprinkler Acres
106.1
Drip Acres
0
Lateral Acres
0
Canal Shares
108
76
215
69.1
68.3
210.2
141
0
0
0
0
288
168
177
70.6
281.8
0
0
324
77
209
108.1
29
163.9
80.3
0
0
0
0
266
100
73
126
415.2
0
0
496
57
207
345.7
37.1
1808.5
415.9
98.9
4243.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
682
151
6030.1
151
88.3
116.8
0
0
214
195
228.7
179.5
0
0
518.7
208
9.9
51.5
0
0
72
99
165
106.8
0
0
364
173
128.4
119
0
0
202
132
22.1
108.2
0
0
155
107
4.6
135.7
0
0
144
106
39.4
241.4
0
0
231
Wertz, Brent
Wertz, Scott
Wertz, Stanly R
Wertz, Steven R
White Farms & Sons Inc
FT LYON Total
Tributary: MAY VALLEY
Clover Meadow Farms LLC
Downing Farms
Gentz, Jack
Gilbert Family Partnership
Gist, Harry
Jones, Ed & Sherri
Lubbers, Curtis & Jennifer
Lubbers, Marge
Monday, May 02, 2016
Page 2 of 6
Farm
Flood Acres
Sprinkler Acres
Drip Acres
Lateral Acres
Canal Shares
Mauch Farms Inc
196
221
63.8
39
225.5
98.1
0
0
0
0
288
122
81
13.2
120.1
0
0
144
78
14.5
125.9
0
0
144
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
47.5
48.3
53.7
40.1
35.1
37.1
30
101.5
97
117.8
68.1
85.1
116.6
120.9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
108
144
144
120
152
144
144
157
202
101.7
24.5
213.7
122.3
0
0
0
0
304
140
97
163
29
34.1
115.6
108.1
0
0
0
0
160
187
122
194
150.3
29.2
140
121
0
0
0
0
288
166
95
216
79.4
113.8
262.3
148.2
0
0
0
0
338
172
79
164
12.7
205.6
1889
124.7
180.9
3872.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
144
332
5785.7
Mauch, Dale & Kathleen
Mauch, Vernon
McBee, Don
Pearson, Larry
Reed, Dean & Chana
Reed, Richard
Reifschneider, Rob
Three Bizee B's Inc
MAY VALLEY Total
Tributary: PLEASANT VALLEY
Monday, May 02, 2016
Page 3 of 6
Farm
Flood Acres
Sprinkler Acres
Drip Acres
Lateral Acres
Canal Shares
Charlie D & Lucy M Dunham Trust
92
11.3
59.5
0
0
72
87
56
248.7
0
0
182
89
90
28
91.6
118
220.1
0
0
0
0
155
288
98
100
58.9
174.9
195.4
126.2
0
0
0
0
284
235
135
134.8
126.7
0
0
190
138
77.8
112.6
0
0
150
104
31.3
115.9
0
0
155
103
167
64.7
47.3
191.7
120
0
0
0
0
257
144
105
49.3
187.2
0
0
252
191
210.6
209.2
0
0
317
80
160
59.9
29.2
163.9
112
0
0
0
0
230
108
70
71
75.4
102.3
121.8
341.9
0
0
0
0
172
423.2
210
66.1
1369.4
228
2998.8
0
0
0
0
288
3902.2
Davis, Rex
Dunham, Charles & Stephanie
Gilbert Family Partnership
Henry, Ruth & Dell
JS Farms Inc
Lubbers, Clay & Nicole
Lubbers, Curtis & Clay
Lubbers, Marge
Macpherson Partners
Mauch Farms Inc
Mauch, Mitch
THUNDERBIRD FARMS, INC
PLEASANT VALLEY Total
Monday, May 02, 2016
Page 4 of 6
Farm
Flood Acres
Sprinkler Acres
Drip Acres
Lateral Acres
Canal Shares
Tributary: WILEY DRAIN
Big Bend Farms LLLP
56
188.8
336.2
0
0
464
156
60.7
238.5
0
0
208
172
45.9
103
0
0
143
58
27.6
120.9
0
0
116
165
70.5
227
0
0
288
102
84
193.3
0
0
252
88
22.6
113.1
0
0
144
169
34.1
108
0
0
142
158
120.4
246.8
0
0
351
59
134
133.3
73
118.3
203.9
0
0
0
0
216
216
117
146
28.7
53.8
120.4
240.9
0
0
0
0
144
252
214
31.8
111
0
0
125
109
148
126.5
0
0
260
125
31.2
118.5
0
0
144
Colvin Farms
Colvin, Jim (Greg)
George Armstrong Trust
Heinson, Wade & Ida
Lubbers, Curtis & Clay
Lubbers, Doug & Brad
Reed, John
Reyher, Roger
Robert Tempel Trust
Sneller, Jay
Souders, James
South Place Farm Partnership
Tempel, Curtis
Monday, May 02, 2016
Page 5 of 6
Farm
176
Flood Acres
96.6
Sprinkler Acres
109.2
Drip Acres
0
Lateral Acres
0
Canal Shares
160
84
159
177.2
72.9
120.9
90
0
0
0
0
144
126
108
31.8
122.4
0
0
166
192
193
93.1
23
131.6
260.7
0
0
0
0
216
288
123
124
168
102.4
50.6
38.5
336.6
99.3
76.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
429
130
72
121
30.2
111.6
0
0
144
72
110.4
303.5
0
0
482
74
22.9
2004
116.2
4604.5
0
0
0
0
136
5958
Tempel, Gale R
Tempel, Melody A
Tri-State Generation & Transmission Assoc Inc
Weimer, Josh & Jana
Weimer, Terry & Jo
Wertz Bros LLP
Wertz, Homm N
WILEY DRAIN Total
Monday, May 02, 2016
Page 6 of 6
2016 Compact Compliance Plan
For
Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District
Fort Lyon Plan
Enclosure 2:
Maps of Surface Water Systems Included in Plan
Arkansas River
LAS ANIMAS
LA JUNTA
Division Of Water Resources
State Of Colorado
Projection: Universal Transverse
Mercator, Zone 13, North American
Datum 1983, Meters
2015 NAIP Aerial Photos
Div. of Water Resources, Div. 2
Ü
LAVWCD Irrigation Improvement
Farms Under The Ft Lyon - 2016
1
2
Fields under the Ft Lyon Canal
Other Fields
Miles
0
Fields in LAVWCD Rule 10 Plan
4
6
1:238,121
LAMAR
ID# 85
ID# 115
ID# 54
ID# 153
ID# 76
ID# 174
ID# 133
ID# 200
ID# 110
ID# 211
ID# 83
ID# 175
ID# 215
ID# 209
ID# 116
ID# 198
ID# 113
ID# 177
ID# 57
ID# 60
LAS ANIMAS
ID# 73
Projection: Universal Transverse
Mercator, Zone 13, North American
Datum 1983, Meters
2015 NAIP Aerial Photos
Div. of Water Resources, Div. 2
Miles
0
0.5
1
2
3
1:160,000
A
n
r ka
sas River
ID# 77
ID# 207
Division Of Water Resources
State Of Colorado
LAVWCD Irrigation Improvement
Farms Under The Ft Lyon - 2016
(Not on Major Drains)
ID# 166
Fields in LAVWCD Rule 10 Plan
Ü
Fields under the Ft Lyon Canal
Other Fields
LAMAR
ID# 159
ID# 214
ID# 84
ID# 176
ID# 58
ID# 117
ID# 134
ID# 146
ID# 156
ID# 168
ID# 108
ID# 172
ID# 59
ID# 56
ID# 123
ID# 109
ID# 124
ID# 158
ID# 125
ID# 88
ID# 121
ID# 102
ID# 165
ID# 169
ID# 74
ID# 192
ID# 193
ID# 72
ka
Ar
Division Of Water Resources
State Of Colorado
Projection: Universal Transverse
Mercator, Zone 13, North American
Datum 1983, Meters
2015 NAIP Aerial Photos
LAVWCD Irrigation Improvement
Farms Under The Ft Lyon - 2016
(Wiley Drain)
Div. of Water Resources, Div. 2
Miles
0
0.275 0.55
1.1
1.65
1:70,000
nsas River
Fields in LAVWCD Rule 10 Plan
Ü
Fields under the Ft Lyon Canal
Other Fields
ID# 98
ID# 100
ID# 105
ID# 103
ID# 210
ID# 71
ID# 90
ID# 87
ID# 160
ID# 167
ID# 89
ID# 191
ID# 104
ID# 135
ID# 92
ID# 138
ID# 80
ID# 70
A
n
rka
sas River
LAMAR
Division Of Water Resources
State Of Colorado
Projection: Universal Transverse
Mercator, Zone 13, North American
Datum 1983, Meters
2015 NAIP Aerial Photos
LAVWCD Irrigation Improvement
Farms Under The Ft Lyon - 2016
(Pleasant Valley Drain)
Div. of Water Resources, Div. 2
Miles
0
0.275 0.55
1.1
1.65
1:70,000
Fields in LAVWCD Rule 10 Plan
Ü
Fields under the Ft Lyon Canal
Other Fields
ID# 63
ID# 208
ID# 64
ID# 164
ID# 195
ID# 173
ID# 194
ID# 196
ID# 66
ID# 97
ID# 67
ID# 99
ID# 69
ID# 216
ID# 78
ID# 220, Proposed
ID# 106
ID# 79
ID# 68
ID# 151
ID# 163
ID# 221, Proposed
ID# 132
ID# 95
ID# 122
ID# 202
ID# 65
ID# 81
ID# 157
ID# 107
s
an
A rk
Arkansas River
Division Of Water Resources
State Of Colorado
Projection: Universal Transverse
Mercator, Zone 13, North American
Datum 1983, Meters
2015 NAIP Aerial Photos
LAVWCD Irrigation Improvement
Farms Under The Ft Lyon - 2016
(May Valley Drain)
Div. of Water Resources, Div. 2
Miles
0
0.275 0.55
1.1
1.65
as River
1:70,000
Fields in LAVWCD Rule 10 Plan
Ü
Fields under the Ft Lyon Canal
Other Fields
2016 Compact Compliance Plan
For
Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District
Fort Lyon Plan
Enclosure 3:
Division 1 Administration Protocol for Recharge
ADMINISTRATION PROTOCOL
Recharge
Division One – South Platte River
The purpose of a “recharge structure” as referenced in this document is to introduce
water to the river alluvium that will result in accretions to a live stream. For the purposes
of this document, a recharge structure does not include a well that is used to artificially
recharge a Denver Basin bedrock aquifer. With that qualification, a recharge structure is
defined as:
A section of ditch, the losses from which can be reasonably modeled as a
single source of water.
A pond or group of ponds that receive water from the same delivery location
and can be reasonably modeled as a single source of water.
1. A written notification for each recharge structure must be provided to the water
commissioner and division engineer. The Division of Water Resources will
not acknowledge any recharge activity conducted without the knowledge of
the water commissioner. The notification must include:
a. a map showing the location of the structure and the court case number of
the plan for augmentation authorized to use the structure;
b. a map showing the location of the diversion point and the court case
number for the decree authorizing the diversion, if any;
c. a map showing the location of and all information for the metering
location;
d. the maximum water surface area of the structure;
e. for ditch structures, if the ditch is divided into more than one recharge
reach, an explanation of how the volume diverted will be allocated to the
various sections.
2. Upon receiving written notification or decree by the water court, the division
engineer will assign the structure a WDID number. The WDID number is the
identification number that will be used for the administration of the structure and
must be included in all correspondence and accounting reports. (For structures
that were included in a decreed plan for augmentation but were not
physically constructed at the time of the decree, a written notification of the
intent to construct the structure must be provided.)
3. Any structure that intercepts groundwater must be permitted as a well and
included in a plan for augmentation or substitute water supply plan approved by
the state engineer. The division engineer strongly recommends avoiding
recharge structures that intercept groundwater, in order to simplify the accounting
process.
4. The flow into EVERY recharge structure MUST be metered and equipped with a
continuous flow recorder unless the water commissioner in conjunction with the
division engineer determines adequate records may be kept without such
equipment. If the recharge structure is designed to discharge water via a surface
outlet, such discharge must also be metered and equipped with a continuous
flow recorder. The water commissioner MUST approve the use of the recharge
structure BEFORE any credit will be given for water placed into recharge.
Administration Protocol - Recharge
Revised February 1, 2008
5. All recharge ponds must have a staff gauge installed such that the gauge
registers the lowest water level in the pond. The staff gauge must be readable
from a readily accessible location adjacent to the pond.
6. All recharge areas must be maintained in such a way as to minimize
consumptive use of the water by vegetation. No recharge area may be used
for the planting of crops during the same irrigation year that it is used as a
recharge site without prior approval from the water commissioner or
division engineer.
7. The amount of water recharged to the alluvial aquifer is determined by measuring
the amount of water delivered to the recharge structure and subtracting:
a. the amount of water discharged from the recharge structure,
b. the amount of water lost to evaporation (see item 8, below),
c. the amount of water lost to consumptive use due to vegetation located
within the recharge structure, and
d. the amount of water retained in the recharge structure that has not yet
percolated into the ground.
8. Net evaporative losses from the recharge structure must be subtracted from the
volume of water delivered to the pond. Evaporative losses must be taken every
day the pond has a visible water level. If the pond does not have a stage-surface
area curve approved by the water commissioner, the maximum surface area of
the pond must be used to determine the evaporative losses. Monthly loss factors
prorated for the number of days the pond had a visible water level may be used
as may real time evaporation data from NOAA or a local weather station. If the
pond is not inspected on a routine basis through the month, no prorating of
monthly factors will be allowed.
9. The amount of accretions from the recharge structure will be credited only in
accordance with a decreed plan of augmentation or substitute water supply plan
approved by the State Engineer.
10. All water delivered for recharge must be fully consumable:
a. changed reservoir rights or the CU portion of changed senior ditch rights;
b. transbasin water that has been imported into the South Platte River basin;
c. nontributary water;
d. excess (unused) accretions from the previous recharge of fully
consumable water;
e. water diverted in priority after "notice" of intent to fully consume the water;
f.
water diverted under free river.
11. Water may be delivered to recharge only if the net impact of the associated plan
for augmentation is not negative. Water must first be delivered or exchanged to
offset negative impacts of the plan for augmentation before it may be diverted for
recharge.
12. Accounting must be performed on a daily basis with reports submitted at least
monthly and within 30 days of the end of the month for which the accounting is
being made. The volume of water diverted into recharge must be provided to the
water commissioner weekly when requested by the water commissioner.
Administration Protocol - Recharge
Revised February 1, 2008