HB 1278 South Platte Groundwater Study

Stakeholder/Public Responses

CSU's Colorado Water Institute is gathering input from stakeholders and the public affected by groundwater issues in the South Platte Basin. In the spirit of encouraging civil dialogue and a deeper understanding of the values, beliefs, and interests underlying different positions on the issues, we have prepared a public input response form. Here are responses expressed by those completing the form online or at community meetings. Colorado Water Institute has made no effort at fact-checking and does not endorse any of these responses.

Last Updated: 2/26/2013

I am concerned that:

Many well owners do not understand or have been led to believe that water seeping from their ditch or deep percolation from the fields replaces their well pumping, when actually this seepage belongs to the next downstream water right. Some say we need to conjunctively use the aquifer, when actually we pump approximately 600,000 ac-ft from the aquifer which is more than all the storage in District 1, 2. and 64 (391,000 ac-ft).
High groundwater and flooded basements, especially in Sterling, are being lumped together even though they are the result of very different factors. Also, the high groundwater issues in Sterling are being blown out of proportion.
Through a knee jerk reaction, limitations to the Ag community will happen with no regard to homeowners having to take any responsibility to any decisions made on their behalf for home locations.
I do not feel that you have looked back in time and reviewed all the changes that have taken place in Sterling that are related to the high water table. Sterling has always had a very high water table.
Past post pumping well depletions is theoretically water the wells owes the river from past pump which was done when 100% augmentation was not required. For example, this is water the wells pumped in 1995, 1996, and 1999-2001, and theoretically these depletions are still owed to replenish the South Platte Aquifer. Every augmentation plan in operation now is saddled with covering the wells' past post pumping depletions. If these depletions were still needed to replenish the aquifer, the water tables would not be raising along the South Platte. Clearly raising groundwater levels along the South Platte indicate that past post pumping well depletions have been covered and are no longer needed, and in fact are irrelevant. What is this study going to measure to determine if the post pumping depletions are applicable any longer and should be eliminated?
We are no longer conjunctively using both ground and surface water within the South Platte Basin. What needs to be done to return and even improve conjunctive use so as to maximize beneficial use while protecting vested water rights from injury?
Need to evaluate what other physical processes are impacting South Platte River flows. Do those impacts have an impact larger than the impact of irrigation well pumping? Because there are many physical processes that are changing in the South Platte Basin, such as water conservation in cities, use of trans mountain water to extinction, changes from furrow to sprinklers, conversion of gravel pits to reservoirs with impermeable linings, and increase in phreatophyte acreage and their increased consumptive use; will you be evaluating how these are impacting South Platte Flows?
Why is groundwater pumping the only physical process that is being evaluated?
Groundwater levels (Denver to Julesburg) are at an all time record high. Where are the cones of depression due to post pumping that are causing stream depletions? Shouldn't all post pumping depletions through 2011 be canceled and removed from our augmentation requirements?
A meaningful study can be completed in the timeframe established.
We have a long history of water management in Colorado and we have studied these issues before. This study needs to be done without a preconceived ("desired") result in mind that will bias the research and outcome.
HB 1278 will be nothing more than another academic study without practical results. Will CSU admit that the Glover Model has resulted in over augmentation of the aquifer?
We may lose some of our Ag irrigation water to industry, municipalities, golf courses, parks, etc. We may not have sufficient water in the ditch to get water to its destination without too much seepage and evaporation loss.
Assessment costs will continue to rise with no increase in pumping volumes.
I will no longer be able to use my well and rights that I have purchased and spent money to keep. My property values are diminished because of the loss of capacity pumping rights.
Is the impact of activities by non-Ag users fully understood? Does the establishment of gravel pit storage and associated lining and placement of slurry walls impact alluvial storage and groundwater flow? Does the change in diversion and augmentation points from gravel pit storage impact local groundwater levels?
Well pumping will reduce the flows in the river. The political manipulation being attempted by the well farmers will try to change the Colorado water laws and impact senior rights.
We need the State of Colorado to issue, on a pro-data basis, junior water that is above normal water levels, to irrigation wells in an augmentation plan on the Platter River Basin. When the water subsides to average levels, pumping can be adjusted.
Whatever we decide to change today or in 2030 or 2050 will continue to need to be changed and adapted to in order to meet changing Ag/municipal needs. We are on an never ending treadmill of needing to find other water sources.
In recent years the lower South Platte has benefited at the expense of the upper Platter surface and well users.
We do not put agriculture out of business.
That we need to consider management other than solely through SEO.
People from the upper Platte seem to be under the impression that water is being wasted out of state. However, much of the water flowing from the state originates below a dry up point in the river. People don't understand that surface users have spent millions of dollars in building and maintaining our infrastructure.
The aquifer is being misused. Record high groundwater has caused my basement to flood the last 3 years. Our augmentation and pumping curtailment are the primary reasons for this. If nothing is done, other homes on our farm and leach fields will start to fail. That 2013 drought and not able to use an excessively fully aquifer.
You are not looking at the large amounts of phreatophytes in the river (from 1930-2012).
Prime Ag ground has been abandoned since the 2002 ruling and will continue losing good productiveness. The South Platt system is managed to utilize the entire system. The system worked with the State Engineer managing the river.
Water restrictions on crop irrigation could adversely affect agricultural livelihoods - economic impact.
Prior depletions for augmentation is proven? Municipal use is producing an imbalance to augmentation plans. Reasonable solution is attempting more "storage ponds," but we need a "sustainable" solution.
Decreed augmentation plans, which are now required, require wells to replace 100% of their consumptive use. The consequences are that wells can't pump and consume any water in their own priority. All irrigation wells are senior to all the artificial recharge projects. Shouldn't wells be allowed to pump some water in their own priority prior to any water being diverted for artificial recharge? Strict priority administration does not maximize beneficial use and may not prevent injury.
Historically well pumping in drought years saved irrigated agriculture. What will we do in 2013 when there is no surface in flow in the river, wells can't pump and the aquifer is still over full?
Models not showing effects of industry or reservoirs and augmentation ponds (example: Chatfield).
Free water is never accounted for. No solid engineering behind the study. Where is there water now? They have curtailed and shut off wells. No snow, no water.
Equitable allocation of water to all users - augmenters not receiving preference over surface water shareholders.
Our surface water "rights" will be controlled or depleted by state legislation just like the courts shut down our early 1900's wells which provided productivity for our 4th generation family farm.
Ag well owners that have not pumped their irrigation wells from the early eighties to 2001 and from 2003 to 2011 have been unfairly shut off or limited to pumping to be equal to those wells that have pumped every year all growing season.
There will be areas of land, not only irrigated but also dry land home owners acreages, that will seep out and become nonproductive. Property and its value will be lost.
The metro areas will continue to raise the cost of water for farmers - including putting some/many out of business.
It feels that we are in over augmentation upstream.
Cities have a major impact on water that is pitting farmer against farmer.
Maximum beneficial use could be sacrificed on the altar of prior appropriations.
Agricultural productivity is being sacrificed on the altar of municipal growth.
We are paying an exceedingly high price for the protection of the last 1% of senior water right delivery.
The State determined parameters for water law during a time of drought and didn't give thought to the results that recharge would have in certain areas located along the South Platte basin during a time of heavy rainfall and snow pack.
The tasks as outlined in HOUSE BILL 12-1278 can be accomplished in the time frame as presented.
Current practices in the South Platte Basin are depriving agriculture of much needed water, while in some locations causing groundwater levels to escalate to levels that are causing damage to private property.
This will just be an issue with the irrigated farmers but the water table's fluctuations affect many who live within the city of Sterling as well. I am also concerned that the irrigations done from the aquifer is going to deplete the water supply in there.
There has never been a comprehensive study to determine whether real time conditions on the river function the way the water court says they are supposed to. In other words, water court decrees may not reflect what really happens, but no one knows because this has never been studied. Moreover, engineering models have never been calibrated with real world conditions.
Over-augmentation is causing high groundwater and could be put to beneficial use instead.
The Sterling area has no interest in the facts as they fought against this study every step of the way. That CCWCD is being forced to over augment their wells.
That consumptive use estimates merit further review and that there may be room for refinement of CU in plan accounting (past and future). These CU estimates may be oversimplified in water right decrees and thus lead to inaccurate replacement (over or under). Consider that a model for the timing of river injury and recharge augmentation, even if made a "perfect" model itself, is still only as accurate, with respect to river impacts, as the basic accounting inputs put into it, such as the volume of water estimated to be lost to consumptive use.

We need to preserve:

Fairness - water rights administration is not intended to be equal but it is fair. Many water rights have been developed on return flows from upstream diversions and have invested millions of dollars in the development of their water rights. Most wells have also spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in complying responsibly with the law by creating augmentation plans, yet there are wells requesting special consideration which will divert water belonging to other water rights owners.
Agriculture communities' right to farm, rather than farmers being tasked with providing guarantees to more Ag interests.
Agriculture!!!
Conjunctive use of both surface water and the groundwater stored in the underground aquifer. What is this study going to measure to determine the feasibility to conjunctive use to maximize the use of both groundwater and surface water for the benefit of citizens of Colorado? As an example, if we have the ability to monitor groundwater levels and retiming well ponds and pipeline systems in places like Tamarac to replenish stream flows, we could pump the first, second or third foot of the aquifer annually. If water tables drop, pumping could then be curtailed for some period until the water table rose above a management threshold.
Agricultural production trumps any and all municipal aesthetic enhancements and recreational uses of water. Denver wants to plant a million trees to help purify the air - honorable mission but where does the water come from to sustain them? Just an example of conflicting goals. Not enough space to address golf courses, city parks and residential lawns in the front range.
We need to preserve our prior appropriation doctrine which takes care of water shortages in a dry state and prioritize the use of the remaining water in a fair and equitable manner.
The vested water rights to ALL users within the South Platte. We can't dump over one million acre feet of water to Nebraska because of unrealistic demands in augmentation plans.
Ag water
Our farmers/landowners and homeowners in the area (#1 priority) and find a way we can use the water instead of sending it downstream.
Our water resources in Colorado. Why do cities plant grass medians yet farmers can't get water?
Senior water rights priority
Keep the augmentation plans that are required to replace well pumping depletions.
Colorado Supreme Court in 1914 ruled that the groundwater in the basin is part of the natural stream.
Use of wells and a portion of the 10.5 million acre feet during drought periods. There is a need to use a portion of the aquifer to sustain Colorado future needs.
The Prior Appropriation Doctrine
Adequate stream flows - who speaks for the fish and wildlife?
The right to pump wells when surface water is short in time of drought. Our water quality. By allowing groundwater to get high, leach fields can now allow raw sewage to enter the aquifer. My grandson will not be able to run through the sprinkler like I did.
As a senior water right and well user, a need exists to provide a joint use with a priority system used for both modes.
Everyone's reasonable access to irrigation water.
Variety of crops - especially vegetables (new laws for vegetable producers). Have lost potatoes, pickles, and watermelon.
Senior surface water rights and levels.
Rivers at historic levels.
The family farms of Colorado.
Agriculture, people's livelihoods, homes and property.
Ag for the next generation.
Our ability to grow renewable food, and energy supplies to provide for our growing population. We are obligated to maximize water use efficiency and maximize beneficial use.
The rights of senior water rights owners without harming property owners downstream.
The ability to use the aquifer as a supplemental irrigation water supply in order to assure a viable irrigated agriculture in Colorado. The current rules and regulations regarding well pumping are based on computer models that have not been calibrated and/or verified as to their ability to accurately predict augmentation effects on stream flows as measured. Consequently, the actual effects of augmentation on the river may or may not be accurate.
The private property rights of all, whether we are talking about residential or agricultural rights. Surely there is a way to manage the system itself that can benefit all, and we need to work toward that goal, rather than maintaining the status quo.
The aquifer.
Senior water rights: Return historic averages without harming senior water rights.
Agriculture in the South Platte Basin.

I need more information to help me understand:

I feel you need more information.
How much water (in acre ft.) are we obligated under the 3-States Agreement (SPWRP) each year?
How many acre feet were pumped last year from the South Platte?
Potential real time management of both surface and groundwater annually. How is this study going to be used to develop techniques and tools to implement a successful conjunctive use of the South Platte? Monitor water tables, use retiming pumps and well curtailment to manage the 10 million acre foot underground aquifer under our feet.
Work plan schedule
Help me to understand the system and the geology differences along the river. How many basements were flooded? How many pre-1950's drainage ditches have not been maintained? How many houses with flooded basements were built when there was a lot of well pumping? What is "over augmentation?"
Why post pumping depletions are still being alleged while water is coming to the soil surface, basements being flooded, and new wells are being drilled in Logan County to expand use.
Why our well level has increased year to year.
Why this is so complicated. Where does all the water go?
Are the basements with water problems sitting in saturated soil or the sand/gravel of the alluvium?
How accurate is the 10 million acre ft. storage of groundwater in the basin? Is there more or less stored in the basin?
Just how can post pumping depletion be still charged to wells when the river and aquifer is near over flowing?
What effect has all the MALL development had on water balance - i.e. runoff from all impermeable areas now reach drainage - the river - much sooner than when it infiltrated then moved to the river.
Need to update augmentation plan map in the initial slide presentation.
Why we are still paying past depletions, even though we have record high groundwater? Why we are required to augment 100% given that we have record high groundwater?
Proven facts, not subjective modeling. How wells actually cause depletion of flows with meaningful statistical data with a high degree of predictability.
Water aquifer and level differences between that used for crop irrigation and that used domestically by cities and towns for drinking and how this relates to the current study.
Where is all the water for the new big dairies being built on historic dry land getting their water?
The impact of a high groundwater table on surface salinity and alkalinity.
The interrelation between surface and groundwater and healthy land.
How pumping wells drilled 100 years ago deplete or affect "senior" rights any more than they did 100 years ago.
Has the effect of more and more pivot sprinklers vs. flood irrigation changed the aquifer levels since less water is used when there is pivot irrigation than flood irrigation?
Why the wells can't pump more and yet still have a sustainable river system.
Will allowing additional pumping in high water table areas hurt wells in other areas?
Why are new wells being allowed downstream?
The impact on overall water-use efficiency of the "dry-up points" that typically occur on the South Platte even when water is flowing out of the state.
Is there "low-hanging fruit" in working to intervene at those dry-up points?
How the State can allow all water users to get their share of the water without additional water storage projects.
The "Three States Agreement" and its impact on surface water and river administration. For example, there should be more transparency and reporting on the activities associated with this program.
What is causing the high groundwater levels, and what can, and should, be done to counteract them. Many continue to point to increased precipitation of late, although these problems were not encountered back in the 80s and 90s, which were two of the wettest decades on record.
Do an audit of all water rights on the river, beginning with the most senior ones. Identify and get rid of all unlawful expanded use. This already happened to Barr Lake shareholders who lost much of their water on 1885 storage and direct water rights because the water court said the rights were unlawfully expanded. There must be a lot more of it on the river, that's why a "Legacy" bill might be introduced into the legislature, which would grandfather in all possible unlawful expanded use that occurred within 30-50 years of the decree being granted. Moreover, there is expanded use that occurred much later, too, in the form of pivot irrigation above the canal. It is not fair to expect well owners to have to augment to protect unlawful expanded use. Expanded use is also not fair to junior surface water rights holders.
10 feet metric used in the historic data sets.
If we have to irrigate to germinate a seed why that isn't augmented according to what the seed uses as the rest is return flow.

I am struggling with:

What is going to happen at the end of the study.
How do we actually measure or model our accretions/depletions?
Wells have historically been used to overcome drought for many years. Is this study going to measure the feasibility of using wells to survive periodic drought? They are on insurance policies for surface water shortages annually.
"Over augmentation"? Augmentation is designed to make well pumping possible in a dry time when there is a "call" on the river. How do we know when and how long that will be at some point in the future? Not knowing these wouldn't we be pre-augmenting (augmenting) for the worst case scenario?
Keeping my crops alive without the use of my 1920 well.
Ag water being sold to municipalities which may not provide sufficient water in the ditch to reach my farm.
Assessment costs ($500) and only irrigate 11 acres.
Does the DWR fully understand the implications from the transfer of Ag rights to municipal rights and reduced appropriations that may be involved in the transfer? Does this affect excess groundwater?
The superficial media campaign that the well farmers are supporting.
The homeowners with wet basements should put in sump pumps and drains.
Colorado "Prior Appropriation" system only is administered to curtail wells drilled prior to 1960 and yet "new" well permits on new irrigated (expanded use) acres are being allowed with 2009 and later prior appropriation dates.
The political aspect of the management of the river. Also, the aquifer/res. need to be controlled in a manner to benefit all users.
Successfully raising crops in the time frame that surface water ditches deliver water. Not having wells to germinate the crop has prohibited planting crops that are planted early in the spring or fall (winter wheat).
The whole thing.
Drilling wells downstream - no matter how it was justified.
The fact that water court, augmentation plan development, and proof of non-injury are options only for water rights owners with access to huge amounts of capital.
Water court is too expensive and subject to extortion of applications by objectors.
The idea that the State has a system in place that requires full recharge during times of high moisture.
The fact that so many people are looking at this acute situation and coming up with such different opinions as to what is causing the high groundwater levels, what should be done to fix the problem, and who is responsible for paying for that fix. We should be working together on solutions to the problem that will not cause problems for anyone; yet we continue to argue about what the cause is and not do anything to solve the problem.
Why there are flooding basements, and an over-charged aquifer and crops were lost in 2012.
The augmentation of wells is based more on politics (lawyer deals) than science. All rules should be the same for all augmentation groups!

I wish that:

Surface and groundwater users would compromise to put the water assets available on the South Platte to maximize beneficial use to the advantage of all Northern and Northeastern Colorado citizens.
Common sense would come back into the management of the South Platte - It worked for seventy years previously.
We could have a more dependable water supply. We should have developed Two Forks Reservoir.
Pumping volumes would increase.
An independent non-profit organization existed to help people with well water issues.
People would understand the Colorado water laws. Pumping wells does reduce flows in the river. Everybody needs to understand the "return flows" that add water to the river.
Has the South Platte Decision Tool been reviewed by any other hydrologists or Ag scientists?
There could be a basin-wide organization to solve well and groundwater.
We had more storage!!! We can build smaller storage vessels strategically placed to meet needs.

Ideas for how we could better meet the needs of both well & surface users:

Cost/Benefit Analysis of the full impacts of SPWRP. Perhaps we need to re-evaluate the true need to "protect" 4 species which may or may not be "threatened or endangered."
Forgive all past post pumping depletions so that we can use augmentation to cover 100% of all current depletions. This will allow for successful conjunctive use so we benefit from the storage available in the aquifer and the successful augmentation plans now in existence, as well as manage ground water levels. Utilize the 10 million acre foot underground reservoir under our feet to manage stream flows and maximize the use of the South Platte water resources.
Actual stream flow data needs to be correlated with such topics as groundwater levels, augmentation, and well shut-down.
We already have that.
Manage the basin scientifically. The lawyers and water court will eventually destroy all of us. End the selfishness, evaluate the data in truth. Realize that the bottom end of the river NEVER before had year-long full ditches.
Compromise, but don't abandon the first use/first right.
Construct reservoirs
Understand why well levels are doing what they are.
Continue to expand the augmentation plans to replace well pumping depletions.
Both well users and surface users can find a solution so that both can, but only without lawyers.
Becoming more efficient by using both recharge and surface storage to meet well augmentation needs while protecting surface users.
Restore management of the river to the State Engineer and not the attorneys.
Good data! Best management of resource
Build more storage!
Allow pre-1960's wells to pump at a percent of their 1969 adjudicated rate. Allow pre-1960's wells to pump in early spring and fall when ditches don't deliver water. Allow early wells to pump according to their drilling date (first use).
I would like to see allotted irrigation well use to be rolled over to the next year if not used the previous year. Especially if there is additional irrigation use from surface rights.
Clean up the river.
Audit the entire river system and the decrees pertaining to the water rights.
Eliminate expanded use along the entire system.
Allow wells to operate within the prior appropriation system using their decreed and adjudicated dates.
Allow water banking for augmentation plans.
Replacing past depletions should be stopped.
Need more storage - and now, not 20 years from now.
Better management of the entire system, including managed recharge, in areas that are conducive to this practice. Apparently there are areas in the South Platte Basin that are not conducive to increased recharge, and those areas should be avoided.
Greater flexibility of administration of surface diversions managed by the State Engineer's Office restored.
Water storage.
Build NISP, more buckets.
To calculate the return flows using actual flow measurements or in other words perform water balances for various periods of time such as prior to 1950 when well usage was minimal, 1950 to 1970 before augmentation was initiated, and 1970 to present after the imposition of more stringent augmentation requirements. I have prepared an example (see below) that shows a water balance for the river from late June, 2012 to early January, 2013. I am aware of another study that was performed for the periods that were outlined above and correlate well with my example. These data suggest that augmentation has had little if any effect on river flow. If this is substantiated by additional studies and peer reviews, it should expedite the performance of the work CSU is undertaking to satisfy the requirements of HB 12-1278. I believe that this technique which is standard engineering practice has a better chance of evaluating augmentation and other factors affecting river flow within the time frame of HB 12-1278 and provides a physical evaluation of the river system that can be verified and is not based on undocumented computer programs.
A pilot project this spring to enhance the study. This project would allow a couple regions within augmentation plans to pump a certain number of wells only to germinate crops, such as beets or onions. This would replace the surface water and allow the surface water associated to these wells to flow downstream to help those downstream. We would then monitor the group water level in these regions, the impact, and the recovery. This would provide very valuable information and also help a very grim water situation.

Additional Comments:

The history of the South Platte was very good. I would like to receive a copy to use at local water meetings.
In 1996 or 1997 our governor (along with a few other political appointees) encumbered us with the "3-States Agreement." Our current governor should make a sincere effort to undue this mess and reduce our overall obligations to the Dept. of Interior.
Thanks for the good info.
We need to lower the water tables along the South Platte to reduce loss due to transpiration of trees and vegetation along the river. Clearly, improved management of the surface water and the groundwater will help both agriculture and the homeowners along the river. Given the huge expense and difficulty to permit and build surface reservoirs for water storage vessels on the South Platte, and given the fact that the aquifer is an existing 10 million acre foot underground storage vessel already, where no augmentation is needed and the water quality issues are reduced, does it not make sense to use several strategically located retiming well systems like Tamarac to meet steam flow shortages instead of building additional reservoirs?
What would be the impact of increased storage? Preferably by constructing an instream dam such as "The Narrows?"
We live in a relatively dry (and unpredictable water-wise) country (area). We have a system that works relatively well. We should try to improve it, refine it, and augment it for an ever expanding use.
There are many other factors affecting the amount of water in the river along with well pumping. Phreatophyte consumptive use alone is a major loss of water. The higher the aquifer is pushed up, the greater the loss from this factor.
Over augmentation
Need water storage
Only the lawyers are benefiting from this. Hard working people are being taken advantage of by lawyers.
Should some consideration be given to changes in historical use patterns of in-basin and trans-basin water and the ceasing of that being used for agriculture in the 2008-2012 time period? Were projects by Aurora Water and ECCV Water fully utilizing water previously in Ag use in the 2008-2012 time period when the projects were nearing completion, but not at full operation?
Homes impacted by high water levels should use sump pumps and drainage to solve their problem. Pumping wells beyond their augmentation ability should not be used to lower water tables.
The animated slide show left out the fact that many augmentation plans have gone through court and are operating with the rules. A lot of study and engineering has been completed as part of these plans. The show gave the impression that no study has been done since 1969.
Augmentation plans need to be made the same. Currently they are not the same primarily because of lawyers. Past depletions are stupid and cannot be justified.
Should the areas of high water tables be able to pump more? Would this lower the water table?
The cost of legal representation to push "aug plans" through court prohibits the individual from developing their own plans. We are losing our water through attrition.
Be careful to not add a stack of new reports and regulations for farmers to gain a few acre feet of water.
The decrees for several senior direct run ditches state specifically that the water is to be used for irrigation below or lands underlying the canals. Yet, above such senior ditches such as the Brantner, Fulton, and Platteville ditches, to name a few, there are pivots above the canals irrigated with water from those ditches. This is easily discernible using Google earth. Though a few above ditch pivots have other water sources, a field check will observe pumping plants and pipes crossing the canals to serve most of the pivots above the ditch. There are also instances of flood irrigation above the ditch. It is not fair that well owners should have to put augmentation water into the river just to support unlawful expanded use.
I have the opposite problem of high water tables. I understand that exceedingly high water tables in some areas is what brought HB 1278 about. Part of the problem is that augmentation and recharge are sometimes done in the wrong places. There are wells in the Boxelder tributary whose water tables haven't recovered fully from their low point ten years ago before pumping restrictions and well shutdowns occurred. The Boxelder, if it actually were a live running stream, would run from Elizabeth, past Watkins and Denver International Airport, past Hudson and finally to the S Platte east of Kersey. Both the Colorado Groundwater Commission and the Water Court ruled that it is supposed to be a live running stream. The interests who wanted it to be ruled a live running stream were very well organized and well funded and had ten times the lawyers and ten times the engineers at those hearings than did Central, who wanted the Boxelder to be a designated groundwater basin. I know, I attended those hearings. But ruling the Boxelder to be a live running stream doesn't make it run. Putting telemetry on wells close to the Boxelder to transmit live pumping data because pumping those wells supposedly affects flow in the S Platte within a short time doesn't make the Boxelder run. I know, I have two wells close to the Boxelder with telemetry on them. The Boxelder only runs intermittently right there and a few miles downstream, it disappears altogether. A few miles further downstream and the stream channel itself disappears completely. And there are still twenty miles to go before it would get to the S Platte. There is very little augmentation being done within the Boxelder and needs to be far more, especially if it is ever to be a live running stream. The current practice of putting augmentation water in the S Platte below Kersey does not make the Boxelder flow. It only gives those in the lower part of the river a windfall. It gets even more ridiculous. I know of one individual who wants to augment his Boxelder well with non- tributary water and he wants to do it near his well. However, the city of Boulder is opposing him and wants him to pipe his augmentation water all the way to the S Platte river 40 miles away precisely because the Boxelder does not flow! And how is it ever going to flow if replacement water keeps getting put into the river instead of close to the point of pumping? I'd like to see all Boxelder pumping to be augmented within the Boxelder itself. I'd like to see if all of the water engineers who testified at the hearings that the Boxelder would run are correct or whether they need to go back to school. In fact, one engineer said the Boxelder would already be flowing by now. I'd like to see if the Boxelder truly can flow all the way to the river, especially once phreatophytes become established along all along its course. Only then, after all that, if the Boxelder ever actually does discharge into the S Platte, the senior downstream users will have the water they are supposed to get.
Isn't a lot of the problem caused by laws and decrees that were made upon consideration of an inadequate standard of proof regarding injury to the river from well pumping? In other words, the judicial standard of proof as well as the legislative standard of proof, if legislators ever look at proof in the first place, are far from what a scientific standard of proof would be. We have no way of knowing what the true injury to the river from pumping is because proving that injury has never been put to a scientific standard of proof. Where are all of the peer reviewed studies under real time conditions using real data to prove what the injury is? I'd like to see just one such study. Water Court as well as legislators can rule or make laws that say that the earth is flat if they are so convinced. But that is one hell of a way to run a river, which should be run according to science and not what is legislated or decreed with inadequate proof.
Based on the information received at the meeting in Sterling and the requirements of HB 12-1278, I do not believe that the four(4) tasks as outlined address the issues.
Many thanks to the legislature for approving House Bill 1278. I am hopeful that with this independent study, answers can be provided to how we can better manage our most precious natural resource, and do so in a manner that doesn't cause private property damage.
I would like to see the concerns go beyond the farmers to city dwellers who have a valid concern about damp basements or seepage when we do have heavy rains. I would also like to see the county or city address the drainage issues around town. The seep ditches were designed and dug to pull water away from the city of Sterling yet the city or county has not maintained these ditches for years so they have filled up with mud, algae, plants and trash so that the water does not flow well, and prevents the seepage water from flowing away from the city and residential areas.
Separate meeting for interpretations - I would like this.
When an aviation engineer designs an airplane it gets test flown. He must prove that it can fly and fly safely. When a water engineer does the engineering to show something in water court or to the groundwater commission, does his design ever get “test flown”? Aviation engineers are held accountable, for them it's back to the drawing board if their designs do not prove up in the real world. Do water engineers ever have to go back to the drawing board? Worse yet, once water court decrees anything, even if later found out to be wrong or harmful, it cannot be changed. It would be as if everyone had put up with flying in unsafe airplanes because the court had once upon a time decreed them to be safe. Much water engineering that has been decreed is harming people in many ways. Some are having to augment way more water than should be necessary. Some have flooded basements because augmentation water is being put where it isn't needed. Others are being hurt because the water isn't being put where it is needed, such as in the Boxelder tributary near Hudson, which wouldn't flow even if the water was put there. Several water engineers said it would flow but are more interested in putting water in the river than doing anything to help find out if it ever would flow and prove right or wrong their engineering. It is time to test fly everything that has been decreed in water court, even if it cannot be changed. We need to find out how we got to be in such a mess. If the work of certain water engineers does prove to be wrong eventually, they should have to go back to the drawing board.
Check the study by Dr. Michael Bartolo, CSU Extension on drip tape irrigation. He found it to be 75% effective while CCWCD must replace 100%. This is a perfect example of over augmentation!!!

Questions:

How are you measuring the impact that the 10 GASP wells that pumped from 1972 to 2002 in the Sterling area? We impacted this area at 10,000 ac ft per year.
Provide a factual statistical analysis with some predictable accuracy with quantitative analysis.
Effect, if any, of low snow pack and subsequent growing season regarding irrigation water availability.
Is it fair that well owners should have to put augmentation water into the river just to support unlawful expanded use? Will the state engineer ever get serious about identifying and enforcing against unlawful expanded use above the canals?
Will the Boxelder ever run all the way to river as the water court said it is supposed to do, if the Boxelder pumping is ever augmented within the Boxelder itself?
Is there even one peer reviewed study made under real time conditions using real data to prove what the injury to the river from pumping is?
Why should a 1983 conditional water right, such as the one for Glade Reservoir, trump absolute 1930's and 1950's groundwater rights? Is it fair Glade can get water on an inferior priority while wells with superior priority are prohibited from pumping? Is it fair that Glade will take water away from more senior wells that can pump but whose augmentation water has a priority later than 1983?
Do the engineering designs that get put forth in water court ever get "test flown"? Do they ever have to prove themselves capable of preventing harm in real time and real world conditions? What if a court decreed than an unsafe airplane was in fact safe and people were forced to fly in it because the court had decreed so?