|
|
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
|
|
| |
From The Denver Post: "A majority of Americans oppose a proposal to expand the Clean Water Act, according to a new nationwide survey released today by the National Center for Public Policy Research. The proposal, the Clean Water Restoration Act (CRWA), has been introduced by Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN) in the House of Representatives and Russell Feingold (D-WI) in the Senate. Voters were informed the Congress is considering a measure that would expand the areas covered under the Clean Water Act, including to areas that are only intermittently wet. They were then provided brief arguments both pro and con on the measure and then asked whether they favored or opposed the proposal."
More ...
54% of those expressing an opinion oppose the measure, while 46% favor it, according to the survey. Among political independents, the margin was greater -- 56% oppose the measure while 44% favor it. "Americans reject the key feature of the Oberstar-Feingold proposal: Namely, that waters need not be navigable - nor even be waters - to be subject to federal regulation," said David Ridenour, Vice President of The National Center for Public Policy Research. "It is significant that independents, who are increasingly seen as an important barometer of national mood, reject Oberstar-Feingold by a whopping 12 percentage points." The National Center's survey is the second poll released in less than a week to find that a majority of Americans oppose CWRA. A poll released last week by the Western Business Roundtable found that 63% of Americans oppose the measure and 47% strongly oppose it. The National Center poll found a majority of Americans from all regions oppose the proposed expansion of the Clean Water Act, led by the Mountain States (62%), the Farm Belt (59%), and New England (58%).
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: Colorado Water
7:22:57 AM 
|
|
Dick Wolfe and Ken Knox are in Kansas City, Missouri, on neutral ground, this week, hoping to Kansas (and Nebraska) officials there of the efficacy of a pipeline to deliver water to the Republican River in Nebraska to bring Colorado into compliance with the Republican River Compact, according to OmahaNewstand.com. From the article:
As Nebraska and Kansas water czars wade closer to non-binding arbitration to settle troubles over sharing Republican River water, Colorado is moving ahead with plans to divert itself out of the fray. "Frankly, when you're in a hole, you need to stop digging deeper," said Ken Knox, deputy state engineer for the Colorado Division of Water Resources. This week, Knox and his boss, Dick Wolfe, the state engineer, hope to convince their Nebraska and Kansas counterparts that Colorado's pipeline plan is a viable solution to that state's share of basin water problems. "I can't make it rain,'' Knox said, explaining the necessity of building a $71 million pipeline to the Nebraska border and pumping underground water into the Republican River.
The bulk of the cost went to buying water rights on about 9,600 acres of farmland on Colorado's eastern plains. Colorado paid more than $50 million, or $5,300 an acre. A 13-mile pipeline and infrastructure is budgeted at $21 million. Construction is expected to begin later this year. The project is financed by a $14.50 tax per irrigated acre on landowners in the Republican River Water Conservation District around the streams that create the river's headwaters...
Colorado's Wolfe, Nebraska's Ann Bleed and Kansas' David Barfield plan to meet Tuesday and Wednesday in Kansas City, Mo., in a special meeting of the Republican River Compact Administration. The meeting was forced when Barfield submitted Kansas's dispute with Nebraska to the compact administration as a fasttrack issue in February. Kansas formally declared in December that Nebraska significantly consumed more than its share of Republican River water from 2003 through 2006. Farmers use the vast majority of water pumped out of the basin to irrigate crops. Excessive usage violates the compact that allocates Republican water among the three basin states...
Nebraska's state and local water managers have informally discussed following Colorado's pipeline example and pumping water into the Republican near Guide Rock, where the river flows into Kansas. But such river augmentation projects aren't yet part of Nebraska's working list of remedies for its troubles with Kansas. Knox said Colorado, like Nebraska, wrestles with how to meet its water obligations to its downstream neighbors without damaging the rural economy. "It's simplistic, but what Nebraska and Kansas choose to do or not do is their business," he said. "We're trying to get our house in order." The pipeline project is one tool Colorado can use to comply with the compact. "We're looking at this issue with binoculars," Knox said. "The pipeline helps us immediately -- during the next 10 to 20 years -- but I'm mindful that we need to prepare for the period 20 to 100 years from now."
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: Colorado Water
7:04:26 AM
|
|
Here's a recap of yesterday's meeting in Denver with the panel looking into streamlining state water courts, from The Rocky Mountain News. From the article:
Colorado's water courts are in virtual gridlock and need to be overhauled, frustrated farmers and attorneys told a Colorado Supreme Court panel Monday afternoon. "All is not well when it comes to water court," said John Meininger, an attorney who represents irrigation well owners along the South Platte River. Some of his clients, he said, have been waiting five years for a final decision. Meininger's comments came at a public hearing designed to gather information on where problems lie within Colorado's water court system. The Colorado Supreme Court is conducting an eight-month review of the system after a task force appointed last summer by Gov. Bill Ritter asked it to do so. A final report is due Aug. 1.
How much of the problem lies with Colorado's unique water court system and how much lies with new laws governing the operation of irrigation wells isn't clear. Several attorneys said the court system works well and is a fair way to allocate a scarce resource...
State Sen. Jim Isgar told panel members that the process has simply become too expensive for individual water right owners and small irrigators. "Some small irrigation districts might only have a legal budget of $10,000," said Isgar, who ranches in southwestern Colorado. But defending their rights in water court could easily cost $100,000, he said.
More coverage from The Pueblo Chieftain. They write:
While recent troubles in the South Platte River basin have put greater scrutiny on the state's system of water courts, many think it would be unwise to overhaul that system. A state association representing 100 onion growers calls the current system of water courts a "legal tyranny," while 432 water lawyers in the Colorado Bar Association say the state should proceed slowly in any reform and resist the urge to change a whole system because of "isolated issues."[...]
The committee reached no conclusion, but will continue to accept comments, survey users and research issues. By Aug. 1, the group is expected to report its findings to Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey, then to the Legislature and Gov. Bill Ritter for potential action, said Justice Greg Hobbs, chairman of the committee. Hobbs said the committee is not charged with rewriting water laws, nor giving it the type of upgrade made in 1969, when state water court divisions were formed and rules rewritten. The committee won't generate legislation or rules, which are the functions of the legislative and executive branches of government, he said. "We're 40 years into it, but it's not our job as a committee to do a complete overhaul," Hobbs said.
Monday, 16 public comments were heard, while perhaps a dozen other comments have been filed in writing through a separate public outreach process. Sen. Jim Isgar, D-Hesperus, was chairman of the legislative water resources committee that first heard about the perceived need for streamlining state courts, based on reports last summer by the Denver University Water Forum and the South Platte River Task Force. The committee deferred action to the Supreme Court task force. Isgar came to talk to the committee as an irrigator, rather than a lawmaker, however...
Other farmers, notably those in the South Platte basin whose wells have been shut off or curtailed by water court decisions in favor of senior water rights holders, want to give the state engineer more power. The farmers want to give the state engineer the authority to make decisions based on changing water conditions rather than solely on court decrees. "From our perspective, the process is virtually gridlocked due to the actions of a handful of individuals who are misusing the system in an obstructionist manner that is tantamount to legal tyranny," said Tanya Fell, executive director of the Colorado Onion Association. The growers argue that senior surface water rights are not being used, but are claimed for future use while wells are cut back. The group favors an administrative solution that would bond water users to protect water rights holders who could prove injury. Through a letter, Weld County farmer Harry Strohauer said his experience in water court, to make a temporary water supply plan permanent, left him feeling punished for trying to do the right thing. "This has been the most stressful, thankless, expensive and frustrating thing I have ever experienced," Strohauer said. "How do you please someone when their only goal is to shut you down?"
Water lawyers, who made up half of the speakers Monday, were divided on how much of a problem current water court procedures pose. While engineering is expensive, it has provided useful results that can be applied to other cases, said lawyer Kevin Kinnear. "It may be the best system we can hope for," Kinnear said...
Most attorneys, however, suggested tweaking the system if anything is to be done, because the overriding concern should be justice, rather than pure efficiency. "Difficulties or delays occurring in particular water divisions are best dealt with specifically and individually rather than by statewide changes that are unnecessary in other divisions," said Christopher Thorne, speaking on behalf of 17 water attorneys at Holland & Hart.
Hobbs, considered by many to be the state's foremost authority on water law, said the Legislature considered many of the changes being suggested now back in 1969, but opted to allow referees to sort out claims - rather than relying solely on the state engineer - and to allow appeals of water cases to go directly to the Supreme Court. He warned that strengthening the state engineer's role allows "the enforcer to become the decision maker."
Justice Michael Bender, another member of the committee, said statistics on state courts don't indicate there is much of a problem with backlog or inefficiency. Of about 1,200 cases filed in 2007, 700 were settled in the bare minimum time of six months. Since 2001, only 67 of 9,436 water cases have gone to trial - less than 1 percent. When major cases are tried, they are often lengthy, up to 50-60 days, Bender added. Some of the suggested reforms could actually add expense to cases, added David Robbins, who has handled some of the state's largest water cases, and who is a member of the committee. For example, the idea of hiring a common engineer to determine water conditions before any legal action is taken would significantly increase costs, since not every water case relies that heavily on engineering reports, Robbins said.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: Colorado Water
6:27:33 AM
|
|
|
|
© Copyright
2008
John Orr.
Last update:
4/1/08; 8:10:36 AM.
|
|
|
