Water Management Committee Meeting

The Water Management Committee (Water Committee) meeting began at 9:00 a.m. at the Fish and Wildlife Service Office in Denver, Colorado. After copies of the Water Conservation/Supply notebooks were distributed to those who had requested copies of the notebooks, upcoming meetings were scheduled for April 1, 1998, in Denver, Colorado, and April 20, 1998, in Cheyenne, Wyoming. The April 1, meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. and the April 20, meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m.

Jim Lutey, Acting Executive Director, reported to the Water Committee on the first public meeting held by the Platte River EIS Office in Loveland, Colorado, and the status of hiring the Executive Director. There were approximately 37 people who attended the public meeting. Most of the attendees were from local agencies. Doug Robotham presented a 45 minute presentation on the background of the Platte River Research Cooperative Agreement and Curt Brown presented information regarding the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Two people provided comments at the meeting.

The Selection Committee for the selection of the Executive Director has reached a decision. Contract negotiations with a Mr. Strickland have begun and it is anticipated that the contract will be ready to present to the Governance Committee for approval at their March 23, 1998, meeting. Jim Cook has taken the lead for the contract. Funding for the Executive Director will be 50% Federal and 50% from the States of Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming. Mr. Strickland's resume was provided to the Water Committee members. It is understood that Mr. Strickland plans on attending Committee meetings. Mr. Lutey was asked to notify Mr. Strickland of the next Water Committee meeting and invite him to attend.

John Lawson reviewed with the Water Committee the status of the consultant selection for the Water Conservation/Supply Reconnaissance Study. Parsons Engineering Science and Riverside Technology, two of the short listed consulting firms have chosen not to submit proposals. The due date for the submittal of the proposals is March 2, 1998. Once received, Mr. Lutey will distribute copies of the proposals to the Selection Committee members. The Selection Committee will evaluate the proposals according to the technical evaluation criteria provided by the fax dated February 19, 1998. Completed evaluation forms are to be faxed to the attention of Mr. Lawson at (307) 261-5683, no later than March 19, 1998. The Selection Committee will hold a conference on March 20, 1998, at 2:00 p.m. Mountain Standard Time to create a short list of two or three firms to be invited to an interview. The interviews are scheduled to be held on April 2, 1998, in Denver, Colorado. Following the interviews, the Selection Committee will select the firm to conduct the study and provide their recommendation to the Governance Committee. A conference call with the Governance Committee will be scheduled for April 6, 1998, to discuss the recommendation and obtain approval to begin contract negotiations.

Mr. Lawson noted comments from Mike Drain regarding the Evaluation Criteria for Study Proposals have been received. Mr. Drain has expressed that the narrative defining the excellent, good, and fair rating levels should require higher qualifications than stated to receive an "excellent" level. Also suggested was that the firms simply be judged as fair, good, or excellent (with the points indicated in the draft) in accordance with the evaluation criteria (bullet items) already provided. It was also expressed that the evaluation process is very dependent on the interpretation of the criteria by the individual evaluators and for this reason it may not be appropriate to rank the firms by summing each proposers total score.

The States of Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming reported to the Water Committee on existing water laws and the ability of existing laws to protect conserved water. Dick Stenzel and Jon Altenhofen reported on existing water laws for the State of Colorado. In the State of Colorado, any historic consumptive use can be transferred to new uses up and down the river using an appropriate shrink factor, and provided there is no injury, meaning that the return flow patterns from the historic use are maintained. Dry-up of historically irrigated lands is often a condition for no injury. It was clarified that the term Consumptive Use (CU) refers to the "beneficial" CU and only the portion of the historical beneficial CU can be credited and transferred to other uses. The CU of phreatophytes are not recognized as a beneficial use and no credit is given for reduction of CU by phreatophytes, with the exception of gravel pits. It is the responsibility of the beneficiary to meet the terms and conditions of any transfers granted by Colorado's water court.

The following water conservation situations were discussed with respect to Colorado water law. In Wyoming, the City of Casper, the Casper Alcova Irrigation District (CAID), and the Bureau of Reclamation worked together to conserve water that was being seeped from the Casper Canal. The water that was lost to seepage was not returning to the river system and the conserved water was contracted for by the City of Casper to sure up its municipal supply. The question was asked if this type of conservation project was possible in Colorado. Such a project might be possible. However, no water court decisions regarding that type of conservation have been made.

The case of reduced CU due to a reduction in evaporative losses by changing to drop sprinklers was discussed. Again, no claims of this type have been brought to the Colorado courts and no decisions regarding net savings for reductions in evaporation have been made.

Conservation measures for the water delivery system were discussed. For example, converting the delivery system from an open ditch to pipe would reduce water usage by:

1. reducing canal seepage contributing to deep percolation not returning to the river system;

2. reducing canal seepage contributing to deep percolation returning to the river system; and

3. reducing canal evaporative losses.

Possibly under Colorado water law, reduced canal seepage contributing to deep percolation returning to the river system maybe the only conservation measure that could not be credited as conserved water.

The following on-farm conservation measures were identified and discussed in general:

1. changes in irrigation application to reduce evaporative losses;

2. changes in irrigation practices that reduce deep percolation not returning to the river system; and

3. crops that have less CU.

Again, no claims of these types are known to have been brought to the Colorado courts.

U.S. Forest Service lands in Colorado could potentially be manipulated to reduce evapotranspiration and enhance surface runoff from snow melt. The consultant for the Reconnaissance Study should investigate this type of conservation.

The Water Committee discussed the scheduling problems between the development of the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) and the completion of the Water Conservation/Supply Reconnaissance Study. Before the action plan identifying where the 60,000 acre-feet of water from water conservation and supply can be obtained for the Program, the Reconnaissance Study needs to be complete. Under the current schedules, the draft PEIS is scheduled to be completed before the Reconnaissance Study. The Water Committee wants the PEIS to address the 60,000 acre-feet in terms of location and impact. Close coordination with the Platte River EIS Office will be required to ensure that best possible PEIS is completed under the given schedules. It was suggested that the Water Committee provide recommendations to the Platte River EIS Office regarding Water Conservation/Supply alternatives and notification of when data for the alternatives are available.

After a lunch break from 11:15 a.m. to 12:15 p.m., the meeting continued with Ann Bleed reporting on Nebraska's water laws. Under Nebraska water law, the transfer of water from one location to another is permissible as long at it is transferred to the same use (ie. irrigation use to irrigation use), provided no downstream water rights are harmed. Water cannot be transferred to different uses such as irrigation use to municipal use. However, there are two pieces of legislation currently being considered that would allow the transfer of water among different uses, if passed. Transbasin diversions are also restricted.

Water conservation efforts that conserve natural flow cannot be protected or claimed under a new use right for some other use in the river. However, storage water can be protected under Nebraska water law between defined reaches in the river. When such protected water passed the defined downstream reach, it is no longer protected and is counted as natural flow. Shrink factors for the storage water in the North Platte River have been set by Decree. A stipulation revising these carriage losses is currently pending approval. Mainly natural flow is present in the South Platte River.

Instream flow rights were discussed. The Central Platte Natural Resources District was granted an instream flow right on the Platte River, making the Platte River to Grand Island fully appropriated. The State of Nebraska will not issue new natural flow permits for this area. The instream flow right is now causing some junior appropriators on the tributaries to be called out.

Currently, Municipalities do not need a permit to drill a well. However, if a city transfers surface water to well use, then a permit must be obtained. Municipalities that are junior can call out senior rights by the constitution.

Storage use permits under Nebraska Law 4262 were discussed. A storage use permit is tied to a storage right and the storage use permit maintains the priority date of storage right to which it is tied. Storage use permits can be used to protect storage water in the river. If it can be demonstrated that the Tamarack Project is intentionally storing water and that the stored water is not "already present", a storage use permit might provide a means to protect Tamarack water to the critical reach.

Nebraska Public Law 4650 (LB108) regarding hydrologically connected ground water was discussed. This law gives the primary responsibility to the Nebraska Natural Resource Districts to regulate ground water related activities that are likely to contribute to conflicts between ground water users and surface water appropriators. The focus of this law has been in the Republican River Basin. A Cooperative Hydrology Study of the Platte River Basin in Nebraska has just been initiated. This study will provide needed data to assess the interrelationships that exist between surface and ground water with respect to LB108.

Becky Mathisen reviewed with the Water Committee Wyoming's water laws. The Instream Flow Law of 1986 allows the Wyoming Water Development Commission (WWDC) to file for an instream flow right upon the recommendation of the Wyoming Game and Fish. The WWDC is the only entity that can hold instream flow rights. Instream flow rights cannot be granted within one mile of the State Line. Instream flow rights are not applicable for protection of conserved water.

Wyoming's Change of Use Law can be used to change a water right's present use to another use, or from the place of use under the existing right to a new place of use. The change in use, or change in place of use, may be allowed, provided that the quantity of water transferred does not exceed the amount of water historically diverted under the existing use, nor exceeds the historic rate of diversion under the existing use, nor increases the historic amount consumptively used under the existing use, nor decreases the historic amount of return flow, nor in any manner injure other existing lawful appropriators. Conserved storage water could be transferred to other uses under this law.

Wyoming also has an Export Statue that could be used to transport conserved natural flow across the State Line, upon approval of the legislature of Wyoming.

The Water Committee discussed Milestone W14-1. Jon Altenhofen distributed graphs and tables showing the work that he had done to identify the existing flow conditions at the Julesburg, Lewellen, Overton, and Grand Island Gauges. A subgroup was formed and given the task of assembling the information required to meet the requirements of the first two bullets under W14- 1. The subgroup will discuss available information at the next Water Committee meeting The subgroup consists of the following individuals:

1. Jon Altenhofen

2. Mark Butler

3. Mike Drain

4. Frank Kwapnioski

5. Becky Mathisen

6. Lyle Myler

7. Duane Stroup

Jon Altenhofen was selected as Chair for the subgroup. It was further decided that all of the subgroup's correspondence would be sent to the entire Water Committee. Water Committee members and others with technical expertise are welcome to participate in the subgroup meetings.

The Water Committee discussed how peer review would be handled under W14-1. The need for all the activities of W14-1 to be peer reviewed was raised. Concerns regarding the time require to conduct peer reviews was voiced. Mr. Lawson asked the Water Committee members to review the draft Peer Review Guidelines and provide him comments within a couple of weeks. Please include comments regarding which bullet items under W14-1 need peer review and the level of such review. The Technical Committee will be holding a meeting on March 11, 1998, to revise the Peer Review Guidelines. Mr. Lutey was asked to provide a copy of any revised Peer Review Guidelines to Mr. Lawson for distribution to the Water Committee.

Next, the Water Committee discussed the third bullet of W14-1 with respect to the definition of hydrologically connected ground water. While the definition of what will be considered hydrologically connected for mitigation purposes under the Program needs to be established, for the purposes of the Water Conservation Reconnaissance Study the methodologies to account for the hydrologically connected ground water needs to be identified to evaluate impact of water conservation/supply measures on the river system. For the work related to the Water Conservation/Supply Reconnaissance Study, the term "methodologies for evaluating" could be substituted for "definition of" in the 3rd and 4th bullets of W14-1. These bullets would then read:

- methodologies for evaluating hydrologically connected groundwater for the purpose of determining ...

- using existing flow conditions, lag and loss/gain factors, and the methodologies for evaluating hydrologically connected groundwater, determination of opportunities for additional . . .

The meeting adjourned at 3:35 p.m.