AVDA MEETING AGENDA DECEMBER 17, 1991
I. COLORADO CANAL EXCHANGE CASE (89CW61)
II. CF&I CHANGE CASE (86CW117)
III. COLORADO CANAL RETURN FLOW CASE (86CW118)
IV. ELEPHANT ROCK RESERVOIR (90CW56) DISCUSSION WITH AVDA December 16, 1991
I. Meeting set for January 6, 1992:
A. What entities should be represented? 1. AVDA 2. Rocky Ford Ditch Minorities 0. Southeastern Conservancy District 4. Aurora 5. ?
Aurora agrees with AVDA suggestion to have John Knapp, Area Conservationist with the SCS, ehoas-e- persons to serve on the revegetation review committee.
III. Should John Knapp be at the January 6, 1992 meeting?
IV. Scope of the Revegetation Review Committee.
A. Scope of the review process: 1. Aurora's overall procedure 2. existing condition of grass fields 0. evaluation of weed control procedures 4. Other
B. Criteria for the Review Process: 1. How is the criteria to be determined? 2. Review of Aurora's sign off procedures 3. SCS determine procedures 4. Other
V. Aurora's movement of water into Pueblo Reservoir.
A. Finish irrigation use in 1992 (Then water will be available to move into storage in Pueblo).
B. Future land management to assure success of the revegetat ion.
C. Other actions needed to fulfill reauirements. AGENDA
Meeting with City of Aurora, AVDA, Review Panel
November 5, 1992 Melon Valley Inn 1:00 p.m.
1:00 p.m. Meet at Melon Valley Inn Back Meeting Room
Revegetation Review Panel will lead a tour of representative fields of various classifications. Panel will describe varying situations encountered; how the classification system was set up and the fields relation to this classification including future steps needed to reach establishment.
3:00 p.m. Return to Melon Valley Inn Meeting Room
3:00 - 3:30 p.m. Panel will review findings in Report.
Panel will review classifications and included acreage. Recommendations for future management to reach establishment. Address any questions which have arisen.
3:30 - 5:00 p.m. Discuss Aurora's proposed stipulation.
Stipulation will be reviewed. All concerns to be discussed and addressed. TOUR OF ROCKY FORD RE VEGETATION LANDS
NOVEMBER 5, 1992
Tour to le,ave, from Melon Valley lnn at 1:00 p.m.
Stop 1, FIELD 56 CLASS VII SEEDED '1989 This field has mature plants of all species planted. This is an example of the highest classification of fields included in the project
Stop 2. FIELD 47 CLASS III SEEDED 1990
This field shows some of the problems which are to be addressed in the remainder of the project. This field may have some possible soils differentiation which have influenced the grass establishment patterns. These thin area will probably need additional efforts to reach establishment. Fall review shows 20 acres need reseeding.
SEEDED 1990 Stop 3. FIELD 78 CLASS IV-A RESEEDED 1991 This is a typical class IV-A field. Overall the field needs time to develop. There are some deficient areas which may need reseeding should they not fully develop. Plants are generally small and root system not fully developed. Time and control of weed competition may he all that is necessary to reach establishment.
Stop 4. FIELD 80 CLASS III SEEDED 1991
This is a typical class III field. Eighty-five percent of field would be classified as a class VI. Some small areas of field may need additional attention to reach establishment. The west side and southwest corner of this field are light.
Tour will return to Melon Valley Inn meeting room at 3 p.m, ROCKY FORD DITCH REVEGETATION CENTER RANCH ARKANSAS VALLEY DITCH ASSOCIATION
ANNUAL MEETING
JANUARY 26, 1994
AGENDA 1. Call meeting to order.
2. Minutes of 1993 annual board meeting.
3. Financial Report for 1993 year.
L. Projected budget for 1994.
5. Status of A.V.D.A. for 1994. (Mike Mitchell)
6. Appointment of Executive Committee for 1994.
7. Election of officers for 1994.
8. Audit of bills for 1993.
9. Affairs relative to A.V.D.A. 10. Colorado State Engineer X 3 rt" 11. Adjourn. ARKANSAS VALLEY DITCH ASSOCIATION
ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT
FOR
CALENDAR YEAR 1993
JANUARY 01, 1993, TO DECEMBER 31, 1993
Cash on Hand - January 01, 1993 $19,379.87
Collections - 1993 78,547.61 sub-total 97,927.48
Disbursements - 1993 (94,568.35) TOTAL $3,359.13 ARKANSAS VALLEY DITCH ASSOCIATION
ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT 1993
DISBURSEMENTS
Telephone & Telegraph 567.25 Executive Committee Expenses & Miscellaneous 709.55 Office Supplies 53.84 Xerox Copies 56.07 Postage 7.79 Taxes - Employer 213.44 Taxes - Employee (80.30) Secretary/Treasurer Expense Account 1,200.00 Secretary/Treasurer Assistant Expense Account 1,050.00 Legal Expense 51,918.13 Engineering 38,872.58 $94,568.35 ARKANSAS VALLEY DITCH ASSOCIATION
ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT 1993
RECEIPTS
Assessments Collected
Bessemer Irrigation Ditch Company 12,800.00 Board of Water Works - Pueblo 5,o4o.00 Catlin Canal Company 18,400.00 Colorado Canal Company 7,799.36 High Line Canal Company 18,880.00 Las Animas Consolidated Canal Company 6,000.00 Oxford Farmers Ditch Company 6,000.00 West Plains Electric 2,000.00 W & EST, Inc.** 1,628.25 $78,547.61
**refund of duplicate payment in November ARKANSAS VALLEY DITCH ASSOCIATION
ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT 1993
BUDGET WORKSHEET
1993 1993 1994 PROPOSED DISTRIBUTION PROPOSED
Telephone & Telegraph 900.00 567.25 900.00 Executive Comm Exp & Misc 700.00 709.55 700.00
Office Supplies 200.00 53.84 200.00
Xerox Copies 200.00 56.07 200.00
Postage 100.00 7.79 100.00
Taxes-Employer 200.00 213.44 200.00
Taxes-Employee 100.00 .(80.30) 0.00 Sec/Treas Expense Acet 1,200.00 1,200.00 1,200.00 Sec/Treas Asst Expense Acct 1,400.00 1,050.00 1,200.00
Legal Expense 60,000.00 51,918.13 60,000.00
Engineering 50,000.00 38,872.58 50,000.00
Total $115,000.00 $94,568.35 $114,700.00
1994 Cash on Hand 3,359.13 Membership Dues 114,800.00
Accounts Receivable 1,808.96 $119,968.09
Seven double-quadruple calls. This figure is based upon current call amounts. It is subject to change. JANUARY 1993 BILLS
US West Communications (telephone & telegraph) 49.47 Mitchell, Howell & Hill (legal expenses) 1,006.79 Ted Zorich & Associates (engineering) 1,143.00 W & EST, Inc. (engineering) 1,200.00 Internal Revenue Service (taxes-employer) 64.26 Colorado State Treasurer (taxes-employer) .42 Internal Revenue Service (taxes-employer) 10.59 Internal Revenue Service (taxes-employer) 9.65 Bessemer Irrigation (office supplies/Xerox) 8.53 Bill Mullen (Jan monthly expenses) 100.00 Cori Luke (Jan salary) 96.97 Bill Mullen (executive committee expense) 49.79 $3,739.147
FEBRUARY 1993 BILLS
Holiday Inn (executive committee expense) 53.85 Mitchell, Howell & Hill (legal expenses) 2,191.49 W & EST, Inc. (engineering) 1,778.85 US West Communications (telephone & telegraph) 50.97 Holiday Inn (executive committee expense) 145.57 Melon Valley Inn (executive committee expense) 30.36 $4,251.09
MARCH 1993 BILLS
Bill Mullen (Feb monthly expenses) 100.00 Cori Luke (Feb salary) 96.97 Pueblo Board of Water (exeutive comm expense) 7.76 Mitchell, Howell & Hill (legal expenses) 7,257.07 W & EST, Inc. (engineering) 5,381.01 US West Communications 78.16 Bessemer Irrigation (office supp/Xerox/postage) 22.65 $12,943.62 APRIL 1993 BILLS
US West Communications (telephone & telegraph) 33.85 Ted Zorich & Associates (engineering) 735.00 Mitchell, Howell & Hill (legal expenses) 1,378.56 Internal Revenue Service (taxes-employer) 32.13 Wayne W. Whittaker (executive comm expense) 170.00 Ted Zorich & Associates (engineering) 1,775.82 Mitchell, Howell & Hill (legal expenses) 4,436.78 Bill Mullen (exec comm exp/postage) 25.76 Bill Mullen (March & April monthly expenses) 200.00 Cori Luke (March & April salaries) 193.94 Bessemer Irrigation (Xerox/office supplies) 30.23 $9,012.07
MAY 1993 BILLS
US West Communications (telephone & telegraph) 55.97 W & EST, Inc. (engineering) 1,990.00 $2,045.97
JUNE 1993 BILLS
Ted Zorich & Associates (engineering) 1,178.47 Mitchell, Howell & Hill (legal expenses) 2,316.08 Mitchell, Howell & Hill (legal expenses) 771.00 US West Communications (telephone & telegraph) 55.32 W & EST, Inc. (engineering) 2,113.55 Bill Mullen (May monthly expenses) 100.00 Cori Luke (May salary) 96.97 Bessemer Irrigation (off supp/postage/Xerox) 14.30 Bill Mullen (June monthly expenses) 100.00 Cori Luke (June salary) 96.97 $6,842.66
JULY 1993 BILLS
US West Communications (telephone & telegraph) 50.95 Mitchell, Howell & Hill (legal expenses) 4,792.92 W & EST, Inc. (engineering) 2,012.77 Ted Zorich & Associates (engineering) 642.00 Internal Revenue Service (taxes-employer) 64.26 $7,562.90 AUGUST 1993 BILLS
US West Communications (telephone & telegraph) 46.06 Mitchell, Howell & Hill (legal expenses) 3,339.71 W & EST, Inc. (engineering) 317.14 Ted Zorich & Associates (engineering) 289.00 Pueblo Board of Water (exeuctive comm expense) 13.72 Bill Mullen (July monthly expenses) 100.00 Cori Luke (July salary) 96.97 Cori Luke (August salary) 96.97 Bill Mullen (August monthly expenses) 100.00 $4,399.57
SEPTEMBER 1993 BILLS
Mitchell, Howell & Hill (legal expenses) 3,877.27 Ted Zorich & Associates (engineering) 2,397.50 W & EST, Inc. (engineering) 1,909.03 US West Communications (telephone & telegraph) 17.57 $8,201.37
OCTOBER 1993 BILLS
Ted Zorich & Associates (engineering) 514.60 Mitchell, Howell & Hill (legal expenses) 5,641.46 Internal Revenue Service (taxes-employer) 32.13 US West Communications (telephone & telegraph) 32.44 Bill Mullen (September monthly expenses) 100.00 W & EST, Inc. (engineering) 3,256.50 Bessemer Irrigation (off supp/Xerox/postage) 36.23 Bill Mullen (October monthly expenses) 100.00 $9,713.36
NOVEMBER 1993 BILLS
Mitchell, Howell & Hill (legal expenses) 5,675.94 Ted Zorich & Associates (engineering) 1,537.24 W & EST, Inc. (engineering) 1,911.05 US West Communications (telephone & telegraph) 60.78 Pueblo Bank & Trust (executive comm expense) 20.00 Bessemer Irrigation (executive comm expense) 144.75 Bill Mullen (November monthly expenses) 100.00 Cori Luke (November salary) 96.97 $9,546.73 / 11 eilr• 127-
P,)
11
13t e't) 3
,3? (frzzy.-027- cv,t y
1 c 75 9 a- (Gt-ez,C_ /a t5AFF
(+ Z-e) -7-7 2 / (4) 1L- DECEMBER 1993 BILLS
Mitchell, Howell & Hill (legal expenses) 2,218.02 US West Communications (telephone & telegraph) 35.71 Ted Zorich & Associates (engineering) 3,236.40 W & EST, Inc. (engineering) 3,553.65 Holiday Inn (exeuctive committee expense) 53.75 Bill Mullen (December monthly expenses) 100.00 Cori Luke (December monthly expenses) 96.97 Mitchell, Howell & Hill (legal expenses) 7,015.04 $16,309.54
ARKANSAS VATJFY DITCH ASSOCIATION c/o Paula Zupancic 1722 Moore Avenue Pueblo, Colorado 81005
February 7, 1985
MEETING NOTICE
To: Arkansas Valley Ditch Association Executive Board and Selected Arkansas Basin Water Rights Owners
Gentlemen:
As you know, the State of Kansas has once again raised the question of inter- state water allocation on the Arkansas River.
While generally alleging Colorado has not conformed to the provisions of the Colorado-Kansas Compact, Kansas has taken particular issue with storage programs associated with Trinidad and Pueblo Reservoirs.
Kansas feels these programs may operate only with their prior approval, and under present operetion, are causing depletion of inflow into John Martin Reservoir.
It is reasonably certain that Kansas is proposing to litigate these issues and to this end as retained an engineering firm (Simons, Li and Associates) to analyze and document any potential impact the upstream storage in Pueblo and Trinldnd may have : lin accum..z1t:n. '" - 2v " r additic legal counsel, Mr. Richard Simms, a notea Ne Mxicu water ai,orney.
During the February 7, 1985 Arkansas Valley Ditch Association annual meeting, certain issues relating to this potential litigation were raised by the A • V. D •A• Executive BoErd.
The concensuE of the Executive Board being, Colorado's response to this threat towards Colorado Arkansas Basin Decrees is inadequate to date.
While Kansas has attempted to work towards a solution within the framework of the Compact, Colorado has rejected this approach, negating a possible compromise, and insuring a legal confruntaLion.
Colorado preparation for a legal confrontation also appears to be inadequate. Colorado should be acquiring in-depth, independent engineering data to deter- mine the effects of upstream storage on John Martin inflow, and it should be done now. This engineering work should extend into the State of Kansas to detArminc ts effect:- of Kansas von pumpage nn ntz-t, flows, 4..hc Itivcy wt1hi. Ka:.saL as welD. Arkansas Valley Ditch Association Meeting Notice—February 17, 1985 Page 2
A meeting has been scheduled with Colorado Attorney General, Duane Woodward, State Engineer, Jeris Danielson and Bill McDonald, Director of Colorado Water Conservation Board to discuss these issues.
You are cordially invited to attend this meeting which is going to be held February 27, 1985 in Pueblo at the offices of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, 905 Highway 50 West.
We have discussed a need for this meeting and I feel it will promote a better understanding between our Basin and these State Officials.
Sincerely,
0
Carl G. Genova Secretary—Treasurer cg:pz MEMORANDUM
To: A.V.D.A. Executive Board From: Carl Genova, Secretary—Treasurer Date: July 25, 1987
Subject: Executive Board Meeting — July 15, 1987
The A.V.D.A. Executive Board meeting, which had been scheduled for 4:00 p.m. Wednesday, July 15, 1987, was cancelled for lack of quorum. I suppose this proved we cannot schedule an A.V.D.A. meeting at 4:00 p.m. in July.
However, we included an A.V.D.A. trial balance and financial statement with the meeting notice sent to you. This should bring you up to date as it relates to our financial status. Please note all bills are current with a bank balance of $ 16,826.88 at this date.
Enclosed is a memorandum written by Attorney Rex Mitchell outlining the status of the water cases we were to discuss at the July 15 meeting.
Attorney Mitchell has advisedthat the A.V.D.A. will need professional en— gineering for two of these cases. One of these, case no. 79CW178, the Ft. Lyon Canal Co. application for winter storage is scheduled for trial beginning September 1, 1987. Attorney Mitchell has contacted Mr. John Patterson of Patterson & Associates to review the data relating to changes in the Ft. Lyon plan regarding their return flows. Mr. Patterson provided engineering data for John Widemar representing the Colorado Canal during the first Ft. Lyon trial held in the District II Water Court later appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court. Mr. Patterson has agreed to provide engineering services for the Association.
We will also need engineering relative to our concerns regarding the Fountain Exchange, Case no. 85CW110. This case is scheduled for trial beginning Oct— ober 6, 1987. This engineering has not been arranged at this date.
Sincerely,
Carl G. Genova
cc: Rex Mitchell TAKE• PRIDE IN United States Department of the Interior AMERICA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water Resources Division P. 0. Box 1524 Pueblo, CO 81002-1524 (719) 544-7155 FAX (719) 543-6983
November 20, 1992
Frank Milenski Agency Liaison Committee Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District 23064 Road BB La Junta, CO 81050
Dear Mr. Milenski,
Enclosed is the information you provided Pat Edelmann at the Arkansas Valley Ditch Association meeting. We greatly appreciate your assistance.
Sincerely,
;*yott ,ekrt.--(4Z7/ Marjorie Penrod Secretary enc. The Arkansas Valley Ditch Association Executive Board met on December 15, 1986, at the Law Office of Mitchell and Mitchell, 512 North Main, Rocky Ford, Colorado.
Members of the Executive Board present:
Quentin Smith Oxford Farmers Ditch Company W.S. Caldwell Highline Canal Company Frank Milenski Catlin Canal Company Jim Sherwood Amity Mutual Irrigation Company Bud 0' Hara Pueblo Board of Water Works
Also present were:
Rex Mitchell A.V.D.A. Attorney Bill Mullen Bessemer Ditch Company Pete A. Pisciotta Bessemer Ditch Company Wayne A. Whittaker Catlin Canal Company Marvin Hamilton, Jr. Amity MULual IrrigaLion Company Kenneth G. Smartt Amity Mutual Irrigation Company John Schiveizes Jr. Catlin Canal Company Olan A. Jones Highlina Canal Company
President Quenten Smith called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
The minutes of Executive Board meetings held August 27, 1986 and October 28, 1986 had been mailed to the Executive Board. President Smith asked if the Board had reviewed the minutes and for questions in this regard. Mr. William S. Caldwell moved the minutes be approved as mailed. Second was made by Pete A. Pisciotta. The motion carried by acclamation.
President Smith then asked for the Treasurers report. The report was presented by Carl G. Genova, Secretary/Treasurer as iollowsl
Balance October 31, 1986 273.17 Deposits 8„ 1,82. 80 Balance carried forward plus deposits 8,755.97 Disbursements 8,366.21 Balance on hand November 31, 1986 389.76 Balance due Mitchell & Mitchell 16,260.35 Balance due Wright Water Engineers 24,933.60
Motion was made to approve treasurers report by W.S. Caldwell, seconded by P.A. Pisciotta and was carried.
The Treasurer also reported a $35p00 legal fee reimbursement for the A.V.D. A. had been stipulated into the R.I.G. settlement by Mr. Rexford Mitchell and would be paid upon settlement between R.I.G. and the City of Aurora. Mr. Mitchell stated that Aurora .and R.I.G. had not agreed to a settlement figure at this date. -
Discussion was held toward enlarging the A.V.D.A membership. Holbrook Canal and the Fort Lyon Canal Directors indicated an interest in renewing their membership. The Secretary was directed to invite the Holbrook and Fort Lyon Canal representatives to the annual meeting of the A.V.D.A.
President Smith stated the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the pending objection of the A.V.D.A. to the Fort Lyon application for winter storage and the Fort Lyon Reservoir cases consolidated under 79CW178..
Mr. Rex Mitchell reported a pre—trial discussion of the Fort Lyon Application for Winter storage was scheduled for February 6, 1987. Mr. Mitchell further stated Water District 2, Judge Tracey, seemed to feel the Fort Lyon appli— cation is associated with the Catlin case involving the Division of Wildlife application to move Catlin shares to the Fort Lyon headgate. The two cases are not related. The Supreme Court remanded the Fort Lyon application back to the District Court because their proposal was absent conditions to compensate for return flows due John Martin Reservoir. The Fort Lyon did not win the case and does not have a decree at this point. He felt the A.V.D.A. should settle the reservoir case by negotiating return flow figures, along the lines suggested by the Supreme Court.
Return flow amounts associated with their augmentation plan were open for negotiation which may take court proceedings to settle. Language relating to the concept that Fort Lyon be able to take each year what their average was over 25 years did not fit in with the priority system on a daily basis operation of the Arkansas River.
After further discussion, Frank Milenski moved the A.V.D.A. continue its objection to the Fort Lyon application for winter storage and the reservoir cases consolidated under 79CW178 and continue to authorize Rex Mitchell as A.V.D.A. attorney in related legal proceedings. It was seconded by W.S. Caldwell. The motion carried by unanimous acc]amation.
Mr. Bud O'Hara, Pueblo Water Board, reported that Keven Pratt, attorney for Southeast District, had signed a stipulation allowing the Chillcott Ditch, Widefield Homes, City of Fountain, and Beaver Park Water District to participate in the District Wide Winter Storage Programs. The Pueblo Water Board felt these upstream from Pueblo Reservoir Entities should pay a pro— portionate share of the 2250 A.F. due Colorado Canal now paid by the present upstream from Pueblo Reservoir participants. The Water Board was contem— plating filing an objection to the District program in this regard.
The Colorado Springs Return Flow and Exchange Cases 84CW35 consolidated with case number 84CW203 and Pueblo Return Flow and Exchange Cases 84CW177.178 were then discussed. Mr. Mitchell felt these cases could be negotiated and settled out of court. The Colorado Springs engineering and return flow sites had been inspected and it appeared workable. Lawn watering return flows will probably be an issue however. The Pueblo Plan and related facili— ties have yet to be examined.
Mr. Mitchell further reported the Frontier Case number 85CW14 Imd been dismissed by the Court for lack of jurisdiction. The A.V.D.A. had also filed a motion with the Court to dismiss the Hammitt applications 84CW207-209 for dismissal under similar justification also.
Mr. Mitchell reported that he and Mr. Frank Milenski had attended meetings in Denver regarding the Colorado—Kansas lawsuit. David Robbins and Dennis Montgomery, Special Council representing the State of Colorado, had called for these meetings among the various water groups in order to plan a common defense. At this point, the meetings are informational. The Federal Special Master has allowed 18 months for Colorado to complete its engineering. The Boyle Engineering Corporation, Newport Beach, California had been hired by the State to do this engineering. A preliminary engineering report may be available by late 1987. It does not appear feasable that the State can successfully represent all water interests in the Basin. Each group is apprehensive they may be expensed for what may appear as the common good. A.V.D.A. may have to intervene to protect its common interest.
Mr. Mitchell was authorized to represent A.V.D.A. during these state meetings relating to the Colorado—Kansas suit at the A.V.D.A. Annual Meeting held, January 1986. After discussion, it was agreed this authorization be continued.
The effect of spilling the Article III waters from John Martin Reservoir thereby causing the Pueblo Winter Stored Waters to :pill was then discussed. Efforts would be continued to convince the Bureau of Reclamation to spill Pueblo Winter Waters after Article III Waters are totally spilled at John Martin.
The agreement between Districts 14-17 and District 67 relating to the Upstream Call from District 67 was reviewed by Carl Genova. He reported District 67 Entities felt the agreement should be decreed in the Colorado Water Court. The legality of this attempt is questionable however. He also stated the agreement should be tested during dry years before it is accepted by both groups. President Smith then appointed Pete Pisciotta, Jim Sherwood and Bill Caldwell as a committee to audit the A.V.D.A. bills for the months of September, October and November. Motion for approval was made by Bill Caldwell. Seconded by James Sherwood and carried.
President Smith then asked for any further business to come before the Association. Hearing none, he adjourned the meeting at 10:45 P.M.
Carl G. Genova Secretary—Treasurer THE EXECUTIVE MEETING OF THE ARKANSAS VALLFY DITCH ASSOCIATION WAS HELD ON AUGUST 31, 1983 AT THE LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL & MITCHELL, P.C., 512 NORTH MAIN, ROCKY FORD, COLORADO.
Members of the Executive Committee present:
Quentin Smith Oxford Farmers Ditch Co. Leo Pollart Amity Mutual Irr. Co. Frank Milenski Catlin Canal Co. Robert W. Hamilton Colorado Canal Co. Ralph Adkins CF&I Steel Corp.(by proxy) Tom Richardson Bessemer Irr. Ditch Co. Leland J. Pearl High Line CanP2 Co. Bud O'Hara Bd. of Water Works of Pueblo
Also present were the following:
Brooks Hall Amity Mutual Irr. Co. Lewis Davis Amity Mutual Irr. Co. James Jensen High Line Canal Co. Lee Hancock High Line Canal Co. Rex Mitchell Attorney—A.V.D.A. Pete Pisciotta Bessemer Irr. Ditch Co. Carl G. Genova Bessemer Irr. Ditch Co.
The meeting of the Executive Committee was called to order by President Quentin Smith at 8:00 p.m.
The minutes of the Executive Committee meeting held May 17 were read and approved.
The Treasurer's report for the period May 17, 1983 through August 31, 1983 was given by Carl Genova as follows:
Balance, May 17, 1983 — $ 2,853.93 Receipts — 2,995.44 Disbursements — (5,313.61) Balance, August 31, 1983 — $ 535.76
Four accounts from the last call are still outstanding. These accounts totaled $658.52.
Two accounts outstanding from 1982 totaled $557.96.
Upon motion by Robert Hamilton and seconded by Tom Richardson, the treasurer's report was approved as submitted.
President Smith then called upon Rexford Mitchell, A.V.D.A. attorney, for dis— cussion of the combined cases 79CW160, Horse Creek Reservoir,79CW161, Adobe Creek Reservoir, and 80CW51, Queen's Reservoir. These cases are combined under Case No. 79CW178, the Fort Lyon Canal Co. Augmentation Plan for Winter Storage.
Mr. Mitchell stated that Special Water !Ridge, John Statler, has handed down a decision that basically adopted the position of the applicant, Ft. Lyon. He did rule that the applicant's claim of 48,500 A.F. annual average diversion should be reduced to 44,011 A.F. This is related to his In Limine Order in 80CW19, Application by Amity Canal, which gave the Ft. Lyon 5,483 A.F. of the Amity Great Plains water at the Ft. Lyon Headgate, and not in Queen Reservoir. The Court had basically cut the let. Lyon Application an amount ecluivaIent to the transit losses associated with the transportation of the Great Plains Right.
Mr. Mitchell furtner stated that Judge Statler had ignored the findings of the objectors as theyrelated to change of use of the transferred reservoir water and also the effects of the plan on both alluvial and surface return flows.
Objector evidence had shown stream flows both at John Martin and State Line would be damaged.
Judge Statler had further relied on certain Conclusions of Law, among these were Cik of Westminister V. Church, The Transfer of the Muddy Creek Storage Right to John Martin and Purgatorie River Water Conservancy District V. Kuiper to arrive at his decision. ItTp-a5 Mr. Mitchell's opinion that the Court had ignored other factors that were present in the cuoted cases. He also stated that allowing the Ft. Lyon to divert their 165 the entire winter would be an enlargement of their decree. The only deterring factor would be a Division Engineer decision relating to icing conditions that would have prevented the Ft. Lyon from diverting in the past during similar conditions.
He also stated Judge Statler had placed the burden of proof as to the accrued damages from the augmentation plan on the objectors. This is contrary to law, and should be reversed to the applicants.
Judge Statler had also ruled on the application by the Amity Canal to change the place of storage for 50,000 A.F. of their Great Plains Water from the Great Plains Reservo:r site to John Martin Reservoir, Case No. 80CW19. The decree was discussed and certain inconsistent factors between the two cases, 79CW178 and 80CW19, relating to transit losses within the Ft. Lyon Direct Flow Canal To Kicking Bird were noted.
Mr. Mitchell said the Amity Case would probably be appealed. If both 80CW19 and 79CW178 are appealed they would probably be consolidated for the Supreme Court.
While the appeals are pending, participants in the voluntary winter storage program should be prepared to negotiate a voluntary program for one or two more years. Mr. Mitchell felt neither 80CW19 or 79CW178 would be operative for at least two more years if the cases go to the Colorado Supreme Court.
The need for a consent decree for all participants was discussed. The Southeast Colorado Conservancy District had their attorney, Howard Holm, draft a consent decree for consideration by all winter storage participants. Mr. Frank Milenski, a District Board member, asked that each participating entity study the draft and be prepared to discuss it at the Winter Storage Board of Trustees meeting to be held September 16, 1983 at La Junta.
Mr. Tom Richardson then moved the A.V.D.A. authori7e Mr. Rex Mitchell to file a motion for re—hearing of combined Cases 79GW160, 79CW161, and 80GW51 com— bined under Case No. 79CW178. The motion was seconded by Mr. Robert Hamilton. The members present were, polled as follows:
1. Bessemer—yes 7. Amity Canal—yes 2. Southern Colo. Power—absent 8. Rocky Ford—absent 3. Colorado Canal—yes 9. Buffalo Mutual—absent 4. High Line Canal—yes 10. C F & I—abstain 5. Oxford Farmers—yes 11. Pueblo Board of Water Works— 6. Catlin Canal—yes abstain—will pay their portion of legal fees 12. Las Animas Con.—absent
The members present represented a auorum and the motion carried.
Mr. Mitchell then discussed ether cases being litigated by the A.V.D.A.
Case No. 82CW85 — Catlin Case. All ditch companies have an interest in the precedent set by this case. At stake is whether individual Boards have the authority to operate their own ditches. The Supreme Court has ruled in the Catlin Case, as an in limine matter that the Catlin Board is the final authority relating to conditions for transfer of Catlin shares. The Division of Wildlife now wants to amend the plan of transfer that is now before the Catlin Board. The plan has been submitted to the Court and not to the Catlin Board. A hearing in this regard will be held September 7, 1983 at Pueblo. The motion is to restrict the authority in this case to the Catlin Board and to the plan now before the Board.
Case No. 79SA38—Huston Case. The Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that nontributary ground water is not subject to appropriation. Rights to nontributary ground water not located in a designated basin may be obtained only through application for a well permit fromthe State Engineer. Only auantity of water underlying the land owned by the applicant, or by the consent of the owners of land to be served, is available for use.
Other factors: 1. Expected life of acauifer should be 100 years. 2. No material injury to vested water rights.
—2— 3. State Engineer may adopt rules and regulations regarding construction of wells and administration of nontributary ground water. 4. Water Courts are proper forum for determining if ground water is tributary.
Case No. 82CW195. Dismissed.
Case No. 82I130. Application by Jake Broyles to move Keesee Water to Pueblo Reservoir. No activity at present.
Case No. 82CW81. Application by Foxley (7,: Co. No activity.
Case No. 82CW212. Town of Monument. Willing to stipulate conditions for non—injury.
Case No. 82CW216. Eastate of Marie Skogsberg. No activity.
Case No. 82CW205. Application by the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District. Referee recommended the application be amended. Continued for further proceedings before the referee. Date for further hearings has not been set.
Case No. 83CW18. Application by Resource Investment Group. Ft. Lyon will present argument to dismiss R.T.G. Application at Pueblo on September 13 at 1:00 p.m. The application is being amended to include certain Rocky Ford Ditch stockholders that have elected to join R.I.G.
Case No. 79CW176. Application by the United States. Newly appointed special Water Judge, John Tracey, has ruled in favor of the U.S. in regard to antedation of reserved rights. He has indicated the Court will issue a ruling regarding antedation of appropriative rights the following week.
Ralph Adkins, CF&I, stated that if Judge Tracey rules in favor of antedation of both appropriative and reserved rights the case should be appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court. Judge Tracey does not have enough experience in water matters to make a sound decision in this regard.
CF&I, through their attorney, Robert Welborn, have been leaders in opposing the U.S. in the antedation issue. CF&I cannot continue to carry this case further. Robert Welborn has indicated that if there is enough interest and financial support he would carry the case to the Supreme Court. His approximate fee for this service would be $5,000.
The case was then discussed with the consensus being that the case should be appealed if necessary.
Bud O'Hara moved that if Robert Welborn agrees to carry the case, the Association contribute $1,000 toward funding. This was seconded by Robert Hamilton and carried by acclimation.
Mr. O'Hara stated it was the position of the Pueblo Board of Water Works the the resources of the AVDA would be better spent working to solve certain problems common to all of its members rather than spend so much time and money in litigation.
Ralph Adkins stated he has retired from the CF&I and Joseph Mahaney will serve as the CF&I representative for the remainder of 1983.
Mr. Adkins also reported a Legislative Interim Committee has been formed to study dam and reservoir safety during the summer and fall of 1983. The present law puts the liability for damages resulting from overtopping a reservoir dam upon the owners of said reservoir. Since the law was enacted, communities have built homes, etc. directly below certain reservoirs. This factor has greatly increased potential for damages. Lecrislation is now pending that will shift the burden of responsibility to those entities that have built below these reservoirs.
Leo Pollart stated the Ft. Lyon Canal had not delivered all of the diverted Amity Great Plains water to the Kicking Bird Canal this irrigation season. He stated delivery of this water through the Ft. Lyon Canal has been a source of controversy between the two companj.es for many years. After discussion, the consensus was that State administrative authorities should protect this water through the Ft. Lyon Canal to insure delivery to Kicking Bird. Mr. Pollart said . the State had not accepted this responsibility. After further discussion, Mr. Robert Hamilton moved Yr. Rexford Mitchell be directed to write a letter to the State Engineerprctesting the State administration and nonprotection of the Amity Kicking Bird water through the Ft. Lyon Canal. This was seconded by Tom Richardson and carried by acclimtaion.
Frank Milenski said he was concerned that the current Colorado-.Kansas dispute would jeopardize future upstream from John Martin Winter Storage. He felt the Colorado delegation of the Compact administratioll and, in particular, Bill McDonal0, Director of the Colorado Conservation Board and Chairman of the Colorado Delegation had not responded to the Kansas concerns in a forth— right manner. He noted that Mr. McDonald was continually late with the Compact minutes, and continued to postpone the discussion of certain issues at the Compact meetings.
Carl Genova said that in certain issues Mr. McDonald was acting upon directions and advice from the Attorney_General'a office.
After additional discussion, Bud O'Hara moved we direct our attorney to write the Director of the Department of Natural Resources and voice our dissatisfaction with the job being done by Mr. McDonald as he sits on the Arkansas River Compact Commission. Further, we should site specific examples of his ineptness on the Board and lack of knowledge concerning issues in the Arkansas River Basin. Copies to the Governor of Colorado, Duane Woodward of the Attorney General's Office, and Robert Jackson, Chairman of the Colorado Water Conservation Board should also be sent.
The motion was seconded by Leo Pollart and carried by acclimation.
President Smith then appointed Robert Hamilton, Leland Pearl and Tom Richardson as a committee to audit the bills for May, June, July and August 1983. After inspection, motion for acceptance was made by Leland Pearl, it was seconded by Tom Richardson and carried.
Mr. Mitchell stated he had not made a decision relating to an engineer for the R.I.G. Case as of this date.
President Smith asked if there was any other business for discussion by the Association.
Having none, he adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Carl G. Genova Secretary—Treasurer
-4- ARKANSAS VALLEY DITCH ASSOCIATION c/o Paula Zupancic 1722 Moore Avenue Pueblo, Colorado 81005
January 31, 1984
MEETING NOTICE
The Annual Meeting of the Arkansas Valley Ditch Association will be held on Thursday, February 9, 1984 at 10:00 A.M. at the Kit Carson Hotel, 123 Colorado Avenue, La Junta, Colorado.
AGENDA
1. Call to Order. 2. Minutes of Executive Board Meeting held August 31, 1983. 0 Troa.7u='3 Report. 4. Rexford L. Mitchell. Present status of litigation involving the Arkansas Valley Ditch Association.
A. Case No. 79CW178 - Application by Ft. Lyon for winter storage. (Appealed to Supreme Court). Also, Case No. 80CW19 - Amity Transfer. B. Case No. 82CW85 - Catlin Case. C. Case No. 82CW130 - Application by Jake Broyles. D. Case No. 82CW81 - Application by Foxley & Co. E. Case No. 82CW212 - Application by Town of Monument. F. Case No. 82C172-16:- Estate of Marie Skogsberg. G. Case No. gn1-2-5--5- - Application by Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District. H. Case No. 83CW18 - Application by Resource Investment Group. (...3 I. Case No. 72g12,6 - Application by the United States. -121 Winter Storage - Consent Decree? 6. Colorado Kansas Compact Report. ---__ 7: Operating plan for John Martin Reservoir 1984 irrigation season. 'Discussion- of Resume of Applications for December. 8. Financial Report for 1983. 9. Diocuzoion of amcndc4 dueo crthedulo. 10. Executive Board - 1984. ,e'' 11. Election of Officers - 1984. -----f 12. Audit of Bills. q(a el 13. c Affairs relative to A.V.D.A. 14. 3 Adjourn. 0 i) Si Carl G. Genova Secretary-Treasurer THE EXECUTIV2 COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE ARKANSAS VALLEY DITCH ASSOCIATION AS HELD July 15, 1980 at the SOUTHERN COLORADO POWER COUYANY BUILDING, ROCKY FORD, COLORADO
Members of the Executive Comittee present:
Vern L. Campbell - Rocky Ford Ditch Co. Frank Milonski Catlin Canal Co. Thomas L. Richardson Bessemer Irr. Ditch Co. Delbert Wallace Las Animas Console Canal Co. Quentin Smith Oxford Farmers Ditch Co. Robert U. Hamilton The Colorado Canal Co. Albert Nesselhuf High Line Canal Co. . Ralph W. Adkins MI Steel Corporation Gene Hammit • Buffalo Mutual Irr. Co. Leo J. Pollart Amity Mutual Irr. Co.
Also present were the following:
Carl G. Genova Bessemer Irr. Ditch Co. Pete A. Pisciotta William O. Mullen ci It II II H. A. Winter PRWGD, Trinidad Carmel A. Garlutzo ci it ci 11 Joe Garbo gent Rexford L. Mitchell OMNI Attorney, AVDA Michael T. Mitchell Law Office, Rexford I. Mitchell Wayne W. Whittaker Catlin Canal Co. Lee Hancock High Line Canal Co. Tom Perry Colo. Water Conservation Board Robert N. Jesse Division Engineer, Pueblo Jim Kasic Assit. Division Engineer, Pueblo LeRoy Nickelson Fort Bent Ditch Co. Brooks Hall Amity Mutual Irr. Co. Lewis Davis It II it It Kent A. Reyher Colo.—Kansas Coupact Member Loo Idler „ Diet. 67 Bud O'Hara Bd. of Water Works, Pueblo
The meeting was called to order by President Vern Campbell at 8:00 P.M. The read— ing of the minutes of the Executive meeting hell April 23, 1980 was dispense:, with. The Treasurer's report, for the period April 23 through July 15, 1980 was given by Carl G. Genova.
Cash on hand April 231 1980 121.911A2 Deposits 39403.36 Disbursements ,41602.76
Balance as of July 15, 1980
One outstanding account $125.62
Discussion of the revised operation of the John Martin Reservoir follo:led. Leo Idler reported as of July 13, 142,870 acre feet of water had accumulated in the reservoir. As of this date, 85,600 acre feet had been released into the accounts and 45,238.55 acre feet remained in the conservation pool. Mr. Idler estimated the remaining water in the conservation pool would be released into the accounts in 22 days; thereby, placing the District 67 call upstream. The recreation pool contained 9,357 acre feet.
Transit losses associated with the waters delivered to Kansas were high and had exhausted the Kansas transit loss account early. Representatives of the below John Martin entities agreed the revised operation which allowed them to reserve and run their water as needed had expanded the beneficial use of stored water.
Lao Idler stated the theoretical releases into the accounts would parallel physical releases in line with historic practice; thereby, keeping upstream entities whole. Page 2
Representatives of upstream entities said they would wait until year end analysis of total operation to deteraine effect an their decrees.
Kent Rayher„ upstream representative of the Colorado-Kansas Compact Commission, reported that Kansas is unhappy with alleged illegal storages in Trinidad Reservoir. In order to investigate these charges, he and Leo Idler had' travelled the preceding day to Trinidad Reservoir and visited with officials of the Purgatoire River Water Conservancy District. According to these officials, Al the water accumulated be- hind the dam was legelly stored. Kent Reyher then asked Robert Jesse, Division Engineer, to outline the sequences of storages by which Trinidad had accuemlated 59,000 acre feet.
Robert Jesse stated most of the water had been stored under the Model Decree, be- ginning during the water year 1979 (Novembar 1, 1978 through October 31: 1979). These sequences of storages were outlined barMr. Jesse as follows:
Water year 1979, during high water events, 18,290 acre feet had been stored in the Model account. This water by action of the Purgatoire River Water Conservancy Board was transferred into the joint use pool on October 1, 1979 leaving the Model account at zero. Beginning October 15, 1979 and ending April 15, 1980, storage of direct flow irrigation rights accumulated 4,910 acre feet making a total of 23,200 acre feet in the joint use pool. During the 1980 runoff period the Model Decree came into priority. Storage was allowed under this priority until 20,000 acre feet was stored which occurred on May 17, 1980. Trinidad then purchased 4,000 acre feet of addi- tional water from CF41, plus 10,000 acre Last from the City of Pueblo and 1,000 acre feet from the Bessemer Irrigating Ditch Company bring- ing their approximate total to 59,000 acre feet. The 4,000 acre feet from CF&I was native water stored in Turquoise. The rest of the pur- chases were transbasin and imported under decrees owned by the City of Pueblo or Twin Lakes. All of the transactions were charged a transit loss and handled as any other routine exchange.
- Carmel Garlutzo, Manager of the Pergatoire River Water Gonservancy District, stated that the Model Decree had the right to store 20,000 acre feet once each year. He conceded that the old Model Reservoir could not hold 20,000 acre feat; however, the 'Limits had been sat during litigation of the 1965 C.A. 19793 Decree and upheld by the Colorado Supremo Court, Emptying water from one account to another in the same storage vessel was not a new practice. It was done via the account system at John Martin and also at Pueblo Reservoir. Trinidad has the right to transfer, as any other Colorado Reservoir has that right.
Robert Jesse said that Kansas had not anticipated Trinidad Reservoir storage to exceed 20,000 acre feet at one time. If the transfer from one account to another is successfully challenged by Kansas, the implications could jeopardize the re. solution concept at John Martin and also the winter water program at Pueblo Reservoir.
Legal issues on refill and hand)ing of carry-over water in various reservoirs should be answered by the Colorado Courts. This is at issue in the Colorado Court at this time; Division Engineer vs. CF&I. The precedent to cone from this case will determine the legality of these certain transfers in Colorado reservoirs.
Case NO. C.A. 80CW The application by Colorado City Netropolitan District was then dLcussed. In this application, Colorado City seeks to change the use of direct flow agricultural Tieets to storage for municipal and industrial use. Ralph Adkins said the GYM, Greenhorn Valley Water Association, and numerous other objectors had entered the case. Because of this, concurrence of opinion was that the AVTA need not enter the case.
.Case No. 8=51. Application by the Fort Lyon Canal Company, State of Colorado Department of Natural Resources and the Division of jildlife. In this appli- cation, the applicants seek to move 5,000 acre feet of water diverted under the storage priorities for Queen Reservoir to John Martin Reservoir. They also re- quest a change of use to recreation and a permanent pool for fishery and wildlife.
Executive cambers present felt this change would completely reeove this water from its historical application as irrigation eater and eliminate all return floes. Page 3
Frank Milanski moved that Rex Mitchell, Attorney, AVDA, be authorized to file an objection in behalf of the Association opposing Application No. 80C1151. Seconded by Ralph Adkins, carried unanimously.
1..2.1 Application by certain shareholders in the Las Animas Consolidated Canal Company, the Consolidated Extension Canal Company, and Public Service Company of Colorado. In this case, the applicants propose to change the use of seasonal agricultural water to agricultural, industrialw domestic: municipal, recreational: storage and all other beneficial uses including the successive reuse to eNtinction.
During discussion, it was unclear how the various depletion would be accomplished, or how the off—channel storages would affect ground water flows, and hod such uses could be administered without injury. In addition, reuse to extinction of native basin water is contrary to law.
Tom Richardson moved that Pei Mitchell be authorized to file an objection to Case No. 80C152 in behalf of the Association. Seconded by Quentin Smith and carried unanimously.
Vern Campbell appointed Quentin Smith, Tom Richardson and Albert Nesselhuf as a committee to audit the bills for the period April 23 through July 15, 1980. • Quentin Smith moved the bills be approved, seconded by Tom Richardson and carried.
Vera Campbell thanked those present for their attendance, and with no further business to discuss the meeting was adjourned.
Carl G. Genova Secretary.Treasurer July bills, 1980
Postmaster $ 16.36 Carl G. Genova, salary less S. Se $3.07 46.93 M. Helen Bever, salary less Fed. $37.501 S. S. $24.74, Colo. State Tax $10.70 plus postage $90000 420.71 Colorado State Engineer, Rent, July 47.50 Colorado State Treasurer, 2nd Quarter, Employer's Contribution Report 4.08 Mountain Bell, Credit Card 7.22 $ 542.80
August bills, 1980
Carl G. Genova, salary less S. S. $3.07 $ 46693 M. Helen Bever, salary less Fed. $37.501 S. S. $24.741 Colo. State Tax $10.70 plus postage and postcards $100.00 430.71 Laura K. Bever, Substitute, August 18.22, 1980, Salary 17 hrs. g$4.00 68.00 Colorado State N Rent, August 47.50 Mountain Bello Credit Card 12.04 Cope Office Supply, typewriter ribbon, clasp envelopes 5.06 Mitchell & Mitchell, P.C., legal expense 270.00 .24
September bills, 1980
Carl G. Genova, salary loss S. S. $3.07 $ 46.93 M. Helen Bever, salary less Fed. $37.50, S. S. $24.749 Colo. State Tax $10.70, plus postage $90.00 420.71 Colorado State Engineer, Rent, September 47.50 Mountain Bell, Credit Card 24.00 Cope Office Supply, envelopes 24.80 Colorado Dept. of Revenue, 3rd Quarter, State Tax 32.10 Colorado State Treasurer, 3rd Quarter, Employer's Contribution Report 4.08 District Director of Internal Revenue, 3rd Quarter, Bever $186.71, Genova $9.21, Company's Share $83.43 279.35 Colorado Water Congress, Directory Contribution i (194.47
October bills, 1980
Carl G. Genova, salary less S. S. $3.07 $ 46.93 M. Helen Bever, salary less Fed. $37.50, S. S. $24.749 Cob. State Tax $9.50 plus postage and postcards $100,00 431.91 Colorado State Engineer, Bent, October 47.50 Cope Office Supply, envelopes 26.60 Mountain Bell, Credit Card 32.61 Rexford L. Mitchell, legal expense 627.59 11;213:14
November bills, 1980
Carl G.. Genova, salary less S. S. $3.07 $ 46.99 M. Helen Bever, salary less Fol. $37.50, S. S. $244141, Colo. State Tax $9.50 plus postage and postcards $100.00 431.91 Colorado State 7n35.neer Rent, November 47.50 Mountain Bell, Credit Cardl $ 5%;-32 •
December bills, 1980
Leach Insurance Agency, Inc., Fire Insurance, office equipment, 12/3/80 to 12/3/83 $ 60.00 Carl G. Genova, salary less S. S. $3,07 46.93 14., Helen Bever, salary less Fed. $37.50, S. S. $24.73, Colo. State Tax $9.50 plus postage $83.61 415.53 Colorado State Engineer, Rent, December 47.50 Mountain Bell, Credit Card 46.15 Cope Office Supply, clasp envelopes, master units, redi-covers 25.52 District Director of Internal Revenue, 4th Quarter, Bever $186.71, Genova $9.21, Company's share $83.43 279.35 Colorado State Treasurer, 4th Quarter, Employer's Contribution Report 4.08 Lorraine A. Reininger, Treasurer, Personal Property Tax, 1980, Sch. No. 19,900 16.58 Colorado Dept. of Revenue, 4th Quarter, State Tax $970.14:
January bills, 1981
Carl G. Genova, salary less S. S. $3.33 $ 46.67 114 Helen Bever, salary less S. S. $26.84, Fed. $37.501 Colo. State Tax $9.50 329.81 Colorado State Engineer, Rent, January 47.50 Internal Revenue Service, Employer's Annual Federal UnemployEent Tax Return, Form 9401 1/1180 -.12/31/80 37.56 Mountain Bell, Credit Gard 67.19 Cope Office Supply, calendar refill, typewriter ribbons and adding machine ribbon 17-gi534.q Duplicate pages not scanned
See originals in folder
Water Resources Archive Colorado State University Libraries THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE ARKANSAS VALLEY DITCH ASSOCIATION WAS at HELD AT THE SOUTHERN COLORADO POWER COMPANY BUILDING, ROCKY FORD, COLORADO 2:00 P.M., March 29, 1982
Members of the Executive Committee present:
Vern L. Campbell Rocky Ford Ditch Company Thomas L. Richardson Bessemer Irr. Ditch Co. Leo J. Pollart Amity Mutual Irr. Co. Quentin Smith Oxford Farmers Ditch Co. Ralph W. Adkins CF&I Steel Corporation Doyle L. Dillon Las Animas Consol. Canal Co. Robert W. Hamilton The Colorado Canal Co. Frank Milenski Catlin Canal Co.
Also present were the following:
Leo S. Altman, Attorney Bessemer Irr. Ditch Co. Orval R. Hartman It It II It William O. Mullen II ft It Carl G. Genova It tt II Terry Book Bd. of Water Wks. of Pueblo Norman Vagher Amity Mutual Irr. Co. Clifford Verhoeff Lewis Davis Ted Zorich, Engineer Bruce Kroeker, Engineer Ed Kidder Rocky Ford Ditch Co. Lee Hancock High Line Canal Co. Johnnie Weber Fort Lyon Canal Co. Alvin Spady Wayne Schroeder, Attorney It Bob Turner Kevin Pratt, Attorney S.E.C.W.C.D. Ralph N. Wadleigh, Attorney Holbrook Mutual Irr. Co. Neal E. Marlin R. Van Valkenburgh Public Serv. Co. of Colo., Denver Al Hogan Larry Fenton The Colorado Canal Co. Alvin Carter It Kenneth Carter Proxy Group, The Colorado Canal Co. Robert W. Jesse Division Engineer, Pueblo Jim Kasic Ass't. Division Engineer, Pueblo Rexford L. Mitchell, Attorney Arkansas Valley Ditch Association Wayne W. Whittaker Catlin Canal Co.
The purpose of the meeting was to attempt to solve functional details relating to a Basin Wide Winter Storage Plan that would include all participants in the present voluntary Winter Storage Program in regard to a Consent Decree. This in lieu of an objection to Case No. 79CW178, the Fort Lyon Application for Winter Storage.
President Campbell called the meeting to order at 2:00 P.M. The secretary read the minutes of the Executive Meeting held March 24, 1982. The minutes were approved as read.
President Campbell turned the meeting over to Rexford L. Mitchell, Attorney, AVDA.
Mr. Mitchell asked Robert W. Jesse, Division Engineer, for an explanation of short— ages relating to the 1981-82 Winter Water Storage accounts of the Colorado Canal and the Holbrook Mutual Irrigation Companies.
Mr. Jesse reported the last minute extension of the storage program had compli— cated leveling of the accounts. The Colorado and the Holbrook had ended the pro— gram with a 1,387.23 acre feet and 195.94 acre feet deficit respectively, while the Fort Lyon and the Amity had ended with 973.66 acre feet and 609.51 acre feet extra credit respectively. It would be extremely difficult to end the program with all accounts exactly even. Page 2
Mr. Jesse suggested various options to reimburse the short accounts.
1. Pro rata adjustment from all Pueblo Reservoir accounts.
2. Adjust the deficit during next year's program.
3. An exchange during the snowmelt runoff between the respective credit and debit accounts.
After discussion, Alvin Spady, Fort Lyon Canal Company, and Leo Pollart, Amity Mutual Irrigation Company, agreed to adjust the deficits when the river call reached 1906.
Rexford L. Mitchell asked if the Fort Lyon and the Amity had settled their differ- ences relating to transit losses associated with the transportation of Amity Great Plains water via the Fort Lyon direct flow canal to the Kicking Bird. Wayne Schroeder replied they were still discussing this issue.
Mr. Mitchell then asked the Fort Lyon if they could concur with the objectors on those issues they had agreed upon at their March 24th meeting. These issues are:
1. All entities should put a concurrent storage program together toward a Consent Decree.
2. Length of storage program, November 15 through March 15, 120 days.
3. The 1981-82 voluntary program could be used as a basis.
4. The program should include the total system taking into account the Rocky Ford Canal diversion, the Las Animas Consolidated Canal diver- sion, with a certain percentage allocated to the Las Animas gage.
Wayne Schroeder said the Fort Lyon could accept the above points as concepts, but questioned treating the Las Animas gage as an entity. Rexford Mitchell stated the Las Animas gage had to be considered in order to satisfy the Colorado-Kansas Compact.*
Carl G. Genova read a letter from Carl E. Bentrup, Kansas representative on the Colorado-Kansas Compact Commission. The gist of the letter being the State of Kansas stated that any upstream from John Martin Dam re-regulation would be junior and subject to Compact storage. Kansas would insist no further winter storage be allowed until the Compact Commission received and reviewed an operating plan in order to insure such operating plan did not interfere with waters that had histori- cally gone to John Martin.
Including the Las Animas gage at a certain percent would assure that John Martin winter storage was included in a proposed operating plan.
Rexford L. Mitchell asked Wayne Whittaker to present a proposed operating plan.
Mr. Whittaker's plan as presented used the 1981-82 program as a basis. To the total amounts stored were added the 1981-82 Rocky Ford and Las Animas diversions to the land, plus the Las Animas gage. This increased the theoretical total and also changed the percent factor for each canal company as it related to the in- creased theoretical total. Wayne Whittaker stated the 1981-82 program did not utilize a true 30-70 split between the direct flows and storage companies. He also presented another program utilizing a 30-70 split. Both programs gave each company a percent of the theoretical total in lieu of a percent of the sub-total between the storage and direct flow entities.
Mr. Whittaker stated the direct flow entities had given up 17 percent of their historical average, while the storage companies had diverted 140 percent of their historical average during the 1981-82 program.
Vern L. Campbell called for a short recess while the entities studied the two pro- posals. Upon reconvening the meeting, Rexford L. Mitchell asked how many entities could accept the proposal.
Bessemer yes Riverside absent Oxford yes Colorado yes on concept High Line yes Holbrook yes on concept Otero absent Fort Lyon no Catlin yes Amity continue to study Las Animas yes, but final concept draft had to go to stockholders Page 3
Wayne Schroeder said the Fort Lyon could accept the concept but needed more time to study the figures. The Fort Lyon could not accept the Rocky Ford and the Las Animas gage figures as a part of the theoretical total.
Wayne Whittaker stated all historical figures had reflected the Rocky Ford diver— sion and the Las Animas gage as a part of the total.
Mr. Mitchell said if the objectors are to approach the Court with a Consent Decree instead of an objection to the Fort Lyon application by May 11, they must continue drafting a proposal.
Rexford L. Mitchell stated he would propose figures for a tentative program and mail to each entity for their consideration. Another meeting would then be sched— uled to reveiw the program.
With no further business to discuss, President Campbell adjourned the meeting.
Carl G. Genova Secretary—Treasurer dl•••
March 16, 1982
Mr. Frank G. Cooley, Chairman of Compact and Federal Representative P. 0. Box 98 Meeker, Colorado 81641
Mr. Leo Idler Route 2, Box 142 Lamar, Colorado 81052
Mr. Carl G. Genova 33032 South Road Pueblo, Colorado 81006
Mr. Bill McDonald Colorado Water Conservation Board 823 State Centennial Building 1313 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80203
Gentlemen:
The regulation of the native waters of the Arkansas River is of major concern to, and under the jurisdiction of, the Arkansas River Compact Administration.
The resolution approved by the Arkansas River Compact Administration at Lamar, Colorado, on July 24, 1951, provides in part that, . . . "there shall be no re—regulation of the native waters of the Arkansas River as proposed in such report until a plan of operation, rules, regulations, procedures and agreements in furtherance thereof, including all pertinent agreements between the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation, shall have been submitted to, and approved by, the Arkansas River Compact Administration and the affected water users."
This resolution was again officially acknowledged and approved by the State of Colorado in a document entitled, "OFFICIAL COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDA— TIONS of the STATE OF COLORADO on the INITIAL DEVELOPMENT, GUNNISON—ARKANSAS PROJECT, ROARING FORK DIVISION, COLORADO, dated August 7, 1951, which was signed by the Governor of the State of Colorado and the Director of the Colorado Water Conservation Board. •
• Messers. Cooley, Idler, Genova and McDonald March 16, 1982 Page 2
The State of Kansas therefore requests that there be no further re-regulation of any native waters of the Arkansas River, including that done by Pueblo Reservoir after April 1, 1982, until such rules, regulations, procedures and agreement's, as specified in the resolution adopted by this Administration on July 24, 1951, are presented to, and approved by, the Administration and the affected water users. Any re-regulation of the native waters of the Arkansas River after April 1, 1982, will be considered to be a violation of the resolution adopted by the Arkansas River Compact Administration on July 24, 1951.
Sincerely,
Carl E. Bentrup Kansas Representative Arkansas River Compact Administration
Guy 1E. Gib on Kansas Representative Arkansas River Compact Administration
Ronald Olomon Kansas Representative Arkansas River Compact Administration 4
4 DRAFT 3/27/82 WWW
PROPOSED OPERATING PLAN
FOF STIPULATED AGREEMENT
WINTER WATER PLAN
This agreement is made on behalf of all participating entities having a point of diversion on the Arkansas River between Pueblo Reservoir and John Martin Reservoir, by mutual agreement and in the absence of objection from other parties, for the express purpose of achieving what is believed to be a better utilization of waters of the Arkansas River within said reach. Any entity within the reach which has not elected to participate in the winter storage agreement shall be entitled to its full decreed priority, in order of priority, for the beneficial use of waters from the Arkansas River and this agreement shall not infringe upon such prior right.
The Winter Water Storage Program shall be operated under the direction of the Board of Trustees, composed of one member of each affected ditch which elects to be represented by a member of the Board. Each member elected by and from the Board shall meet at frequent intervals to make all recommendations necessary for the equitable distribution of direct flow water in the Program, which recommendations shall be based on the following general guidelines:
1. River flows in excess of the amount of the flow necessary to supply priorities not participating, may be stored in Pueblo Reservoir and other off- channel storage facilitjes of participating entities _ during the period from November 16th of each year until March 15th of the following year.
2. Ditches shall have the option as to whether or not they store in Pueblo Reservoir, their own off-stream storage facilities, or, apply all or .a portion of their "maximum allowable diversion" to immediate beneficial use. Ditches with off-stream storage facilities will not unduly invade the allowable storage pool in Pueblo Reservoir.
3. Subject to determination of the right to store direct flow water at the same, or, alternate points of diversion, and the mutual agreements contained herein, each participant agrees not to call for any portion of water exceeding its i proportionate share of the total expected daily flow of the controlled reach. The'maximum allowable diversion'of each participating entity will be pre-determined as a daily flow which it applied to ground storage and other beneficial uses as an average historic diversion during the period from Nov. 16, 1950 to Mar. 15, 1970 and which it reasonably could be expected to use for such purposes in the absence of this agreement during present and future periods; such diversion may then be made in priority for immediate exchange among all participating entities until each such entity shall have received its proportionate share of the "total production" of the reach.
4. The Division Engineer will determine the "total production" as the sum of all diversions, storage and outflow from the reach, and further, will make all exchanges necessary to effect the purpose of this agreement.
5. All entities agree that the transportation loss for Winter Water shall be based on the USGS study and all entities storing in Pueblo will pay their own loss from Pueblo Reservoir.
6. A charge, including evaporation, will be made for Winter Water stored in Pueblo Reservoir during the Program's operation in the • ..-Winter Storage period.
7. It is further understood and agreed that all companies entering into this agreement do not waive any of their rights or interests to water rights and priorities thereto, except as to the temporary suspension of said rights as provided in the Program,
8. During the time of low flow, it may be necessary for the Division Engineer to advise that he may not be able to identify the reservoir run and little or no credit may be given for the release.
9. We the (Canal/Reservoir) Company agree to proceed with the above Operating Plan.
Signature No. 1014 -50 Sheets 1.1. • • •-• . 47; •2:.= s
• t • -7 1,4, • Act'a A TOTALT HECK ET 1CAL STORAGE. 1410V 16 — AR /5- - AF 070 BESS'AR 2,20 ;,r7-P5 sitg /411.4LIAIE /110W 0)(FoDi .266_7 ct2.3 CAT). IN /..10c72 A1 1SC. S02 g OTEk0 1 f1-7 .6 37/7 CoffLi1/97E0 3%,;2_ *
COLok IUD /7 ag k0CieV F-ORn 5373 1° .36 Ca3 ROOK /,27 ? g 7 5
FORT 1.yod 5-07923/AO
Afrirry 475:6 / 7o 41 "" /2.7
TOTA L '7.01 /00.0
?1d nto4 pa)-4/c/?4.71e - 2O Yea,r- eLvey4 e ase F F /5 A 30-76 5TaT
F. 8,ESSAIF R 6.3 93gq /..24// OxFoRD 30%,R,D 3040
C47-414/ ci .3 132o2.
MISc. .ii Lo3
OT5Ra ( .7 /OW chiCOZ/b/97T.b .,,2.R ii,2//
Coicipe //.. 146.40
VOCk Fon 3. ys 5101
VOLB,2OOA 70% 7. 3 11655 Fo'R-7-- Le/sod 32.3 zi2077
A/YHTV U./ 171 Sq 3.a. 4/g3o /0 At :1 EXECUTIVE BOARD MEETING
A.V.D.A.
January 18, 1990
The meeting was called to order at 10:30 a.m., at the office of Scott Foncannon, Rocky Ford, Colorado with the following in attendance.
Quentin Smith Oxford Frank Milenski Catlin Elmer Bauman Catlin W.S. Caldwell Highline Vernon Proctor Highline Don Halffield Las Animas Pete Juba Pueblo Board of Water Works Rex Mitchell Attorney Bill Mullen Sec.—Treas. A.V.D.A.
Rex Mitchell, A.V.D.A. Attorney went over pending cases. He then handed out a proposed settlement plan for Aurora on reseeding. The Board then dis— cussed at length the possible conditions.
The Board discussed the winter storage of the direct flow ditches, and directed Mr. Mitchell to send a letter to Ray Nixon requesting action on our request of 40,000 acre feet of permanent storage.
The meeting adjourned at 12:00 p.m.
ectfull submitted,
eResPill Mullen, Sec—Treas. A.V.D.A. EXECUTIVE BOARD MEETING
A.V.D.A.
January 30, 1990
The meeting came to order at 1:30 p.m., at the offices of the South— attendance. eastern Colorado Water Conservancy District. The following were in
Quentin Smith Oxford Tom Richardson Bessemer Frank Melinski Catlin Vernon Proctor Highline Bill Caldwell Highline Earl Asbury Bessemer Pete Juba Board of Water Works John Dingles Attorney — Aurora Jerry Knapp Aurora Doug Kemper Aurora Paul Flack Aurora
The Aurora people laid out plans and dates for completing the incomplete items of their decree, and the amount of water they would need to complete the seeding program. heard The Board listened and told Aurora they would consider what they had and get back to them.
The meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
(Bill Mullen, Sec—Treas., A.V.D.A. EXECUTIVE BOARD MEETING
A.V.D.A.
April 9, 1990
President Richardson called the meeting to order at 10:00a.m., at the Melon Valley Inn, Rocky Ford, Colorado. Executive Board members present:
Tom Richardson Bessemer Bill Caldwell Highline Bill Mullen Bessemer Frank Melinski Catlin Quentin Smith Oxford Gary Bostrum Colorado Canal and others
Mr. Bostrum introduced the engineeres from the City of Colorado Springs, after which they went over the engineering data they had collected on their lawn watering return flow cases.
After some discussion, Mr. Bostrum invited all members to a field trip to inspect their engineering equipment and drainage.
The meeting adjourned at 12:30p.m.
Respectfully submitted, - ill Mullen, Sec-Treas., A.V.D.A. EXECUTIVE BOARD MEETING
A.V.D.A.
May 2, 1990
President Richardson called the meeting to order at 7:00p.m., at the Melon Valley Inn, Rocky Ford, Colorado. Executive Board members present were:
Tom Richardson Bessemer Bill Caldwell Highline Wm. Mullen Bessemer Frank Melinski Catlin Quentin Smith Oxford Gary Bostrum Colorado Canal Bud O'Hara Board of Water Works Carl Genova Bessemer Pat Edelmann U.S.C.S.
Mr. Edelmann asked if he could get the members to take and submit water samples at the head of each canal once a week. Mr. Edelmann said they wanted to get a tighter hold on salinity of the river.
After some discussion, all canals agreed to participate in the study.
The Board then discussed various scenarios of giving the winter waters and the municipalities firm storage in Pueblo Reservoir.
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Bill Mullen, Sec—Treas., A.V.D.A. EXECUTIVE BOARD MEETING
A.V.D.A.
May 12, 1990
The meeting came to order at 7:30 p.m. at the Melon Valley Inn, Rocky Ford Colorado. The following were present:
Tom Richardson Bessemer Bill Caldwell Highline Bill Mullen Bessemer Frank Melinski Catlin Quentin Smith Oxford Rex Mitchell Attorney Carl Genova Bessemer
Mr. Mitchell updated the Board on various cases. He said the Colorado Kansas case would be changed to September 16.
The Board discussed scenario 13 on water storage in Pueblo Reservoir.
Mr. Mitchell also told the Board that we would have to file for an extension of the interlocatory decree at least 90 days before it is to become final.
The Board asked Mr. Mitchell to contact all winter water entities to see if they wanted an extension of the decree.
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Bill Mullen, Sec—Trea;:',--A.V.D.A. EXECUTIVE BOARD MEETING
A.V.D.A.
June 27, 1990
The meeting opended at 8:00 P.M., at the Melon Valley Inn, Rocky Ford, Colorado, with the following in attendance.
Tom Richardson Bessemer Bill Caldwell Highline Bill Mullen Bessemer Quentin Smith Oxford Frank Milenski Catlin Bud O'Hara Board of Water Works Al McCraken Las Animas Pete Pisciotta Bessemer Carl Genova Bessemer Bert Nessilhuf Highline Vernon Proctor Highline Richard Estep Highline Wayne Whittaker Catlin Elmer Bauman Catlin John Schivlizer Catlin
The Board discussed getting firm storage in Pueblo Reservoir for winter water.
A motion by Mr. Caldwell, seconded by John Schivlizer carried to wait on any action onwinter water interloctutory decree until after July 17, when more information would be available on new senarios of operation of Pueblo Reservoir.
The board discussed hiring a new attorney for A.V.D.A.
The meeting adjourned at 9:25 P.M.
Repect ully submitted,
nill Mullen Sec—Treas., AVDA• • • • EXECUTIVE BOARD MEETING
A.V.D.A.
July 17, 1990
The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. at Pueblo Board of Water Works offices, Pueblo, Colorado. The following were in attendance.
Tom Richardson Bessemer Bill Caldwell Highline Quentin Smith Oxford Frank Milenski Catlin Bud O'Hara Pueblo Water Board Carl Genova Bessemer Gary Bostrum Colorado Springs Phill Tollefson Colorado Springs Alan Hamel Water Works Rex Mitchell A.V.D.A. Attorney
The Board discussed the new scenarios proposed by the Bureau of Rec— lamation.
Mr. Rex Mitchell told the members that the Conservancy District would not go along with extending the interlocking decree. We could not apply for an extension without opening up the whole decree.
After much discussion the A.V.D.A. members that store water at Pueblo decided not to take any action on the decree.
The meeting adjourned at 3:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
ill Mullen, Sec—Treas. A.V.D.A. ARKANSAS VALLEY DITCH ASSOCIATION EXECUTIVE BOARD MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 25, 1990
The meeting of the Arkansas Valley Ditch Association Executive Board was held October 25, 1990, at the Melon Valley Inn, Rocky Ford, Colorado.
President Tom Richardson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. President Richardson stated that William Mullen, Secretary/Treasurer of AVDA, was unable to attend. The financial report and the minutes of the previous meeting would not be a part of the meeting proceedings.
President Richardson called upon Rexford Mitchell, AVDA Attorney, for a report regarding pending legal proceedings involving AVDA.
Rex Mitchell
1. Case No. 85CW130, Public Service Application. Case is set for trial October 29, 1990, through November 5, 1990. AVDA, Pueblo Board of Water Works, and Southeast Dis- trict have filed Motions in Limine. The Water Court ruled on these motions October 4, 1990.
Motions One and Two: Whether Application is Contrary to Conditions of Case No. 80CW52 and Case No. 85CW114. Basi- cally, court agreed with AVDA that the terms and conditions of 80CW52 and incorporated into the Southwest Reservoir Case No. 85CW114 are restrictive and in force. PSCO cannot divert or exchange at a new point (other than L.A. Cons. Headgate). Court also stated that before PSCO can use net loss water, it be preceded by the construction of an off- channel reservoir at proposed plant site.
Motion Three: Regarding Water Rights of Minority Shareholders. Minority cannot obtain a decree for a change of their water rights, but could obtain a conditional decree for exchange.
Motion Four: Related to the Kansas-Colorado Case. Passed.
Motion Five: Related to applicants' Use of John Martin Reservoir. Court concluded the application contrary to John Martin 1980 Operating Plan (5,000 A.F. Ag. use only) and dismissed PSCO claims to John Martin use.
Motion Six: Relating to Priority Dates. Court concluded that because of new matters raised in second amended ap- plication, new issues could not relate back to date of the original application or prior to 1989 when amended applica- tion was filed. Arkansas Valley Ditch Association Executive Board Meeting Minutes Page Two October 25, 1990
PSCO has asked court to vacate trial date as scheduled so they may file a third amended application with additional engineering. Objectors AVDA, Pueblo, and Southeastern Dis- trict will resist and ask Court to proceed with trial.
2. 89CW36 and Consolidated Cases Colorado Springs Applications.
Consolidated Cases are set for pre-trial conference October 26, 1990. Trial is set to commence January 7, 1991 (three weeks). Colorado Springs has filed an additional applica- tion (90CW39), requesting waters from Laramie-Fox Hills, Arapahoe, Denver, and Dawson Aquifers for use in conjunction with their Augumentation Plan. This will require a deter- mination from the State Engineer regarding amounts of waters available from these aquifers. The State Engineer has stated because of his involvement with the Kansas-Colorado Case, he would not be able to make an immediate analysis and has filed a joint motion with AVDA to vacate the January trial dates.
Mr. Mitchell then introduced Mr. Bruce Kroeker, an engineer from the office of Ted Zorich. Mr. Kroeker is employed by objectors along Fountain Creek for work related to their op- position to 89CW36. Mr. Mitchell felt additional data relating to the C.S. lysimeters is needed and recommended. Mr. Kroeker be employed by AVDA for this purpose.
Mr. Kroeker stated he and Mike Saylor, (also from Zorich office), Frank Melinski, Bill Melinski, and Carl Genova (from AVDA) and Phil Sallata (engineer from Colorado Springs) have examined various lysimeter sites in Colorado Springs October 22, 1990. He performed soil probes adjacent to the lysimeters and sent the samples to a laboratory for analysis. Bill Melinski and Carl Genova have probed the in- ner edges of the lysimeters with a steel ruler. Cavities between the edges and inner soil within the lysimeters were noted in two of the four lysimeters checked. Mr. Kroeker stated a number of things could be wrong with Colorado Springs lysimeter data, and did not believe the lysimeter data to be totally representative of city irrigation. Lysimeter sites are receiving more water than the rest of the city. Mr. Kroeker estimated additional work needed by AVDA would cost the association $2,500 to $3,000.
After further discussion, Frank Melinski moved Mr. Bruce Kroeker be employed by AVDA for engineering work relating to the Colorado Springs applications. Seconded by Bill Caldwell, and passed unanimously. Arkansas Valley Ditch Association Executive Board Meeting Minutes Page Three October 25, 1990
Mr. Mitchell then introduced Mrs. Catherine Kraeger-Rovey, principal Geohydrologist; and Mr. Edward W. Rovey, principal Hydrologist; from West, Inc. This firm specializes in water and environmental systems technology. Mr. Mitchell stated that the AVDA could not build a hydrologic model, but felt that an expert is needed who can interpret and analyze the methodology within the Colorado Springs model. Mrs. Rovey is highly respected in her field and Mr. Mitchell had in- vited her to address the AVDA.
Mrs. Rovey stated she had developed ground water models twenty years ago. She has an intimate knowledge of hydrologic modeling and is familiar with the Colorado Springs model. She feels the Colorado Springs model is somewhat outdated and is concerned with the hydrologic pack- aging used by the Springs. She feels additional depletions are possible and are not factored into the Colorado Springs programs.
After further discussion, consensus of AVDA was that such an analysis with expert testimony by Mrs. Rovey would be needed by AVDA for the trial. President Richardson asked Mrs. Rovey if she would do this work for the Association and, if so, prepare a cost estimate for AVDA analysis. AVDA would then proceed if affordable. Mrs. Rovey agreed.
3. Kansas vs. Colorado
Mr. Mitchell stated the trial commenced September 17 in Pasadena, California. The opening statement was submitted by the Kansas Attorney General. Kansas' first witness was Dr. Littlefield, their Historian. The trial is proceeding very slowly. Brent Spronk of Spronk Engineering is expected to submit engineering testimony for Kansas the last week in October. The trial proceedings are not hurting Colorado at this point.
Mr. Mitchell's future representation of the AVDA was then discussed. He stated that he planned to terminate his serv- ices October 31, 1990, but in view of the present cases in- volving AVDA (including Kansas vs. Colorado), he could not withdraw at that date. He would continue to represent the AVDA until a future date when these cases are settled, but could not do so at the rate of payment agreed upon for 1989- 1990 ($60,000 for 12 mos.). He proposed payment of $7,000 per month on a month-by-month basis. Arkansas Valley Ditch Association Executive Board Meeting Minutes Page Four October 25, 1990
Discussion was then held regarding a replacement for Mr. Mitchell as AVDA Attorney. It was noted that most of the water attorneys have a conflict of interest related to the AVDA in most of the cases involving the Association. Mr. Mitchell suggested that his son, Mike, had some limited Arkansas River water experience before he moved to Parker. He is familiar with the Arkansas Valley and the people as- sociated with the canals. Mr. Mike Mitchell stated he would consider representing the Association, but would need time and counsel. He would be willing to take an active part in the current court proceedings and attend the attorney and AVDA meetings with Mr. Rex Mitchell for a six-month training period at no additional cost to AVDA.
After further discussion, Bill Caldwell moved the Associa- tion continue Rex Mitchell's representation of AVDA on a month-by-month basis at $7,000 per month. Seconded by Quen- tin Smith. Motion carried unanimously. Mike Mitchell was requested to work with Rex Mitchell as discussed.
Then, President Richardson asked if there was additional business for discussion. Hearing none, the meeting was ad- journed at 11:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Carl G. Genova Acting Secretary ••••
EXECUTIVE BOARD SPECIAL MEETING
A.V.D.A.
November 7, 1989
The meeting was called to order at 10:30 a.m, at the offices of South— eastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, with the following members present:
Quentin Smith Oxford Frank Melinski Catlin Bill Caldwell Highline Gary Bostrum Colorado Canal Pete Juba City of Pueblo Bill Mullen Bessemer Also present: Elmer Bauman Catlin Vernon Proctor Highline Rex Mitchell Attorney
Mr. Mitchell discussed with the Board what might happen at the R.I.G. hearing today. After much discussion, decided what we would like the judge to do if we were asked.
The meeting adjourned at 12:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, 4 niJ.l len, Sec—Treas., A.V.D.A. fib
EXECUTIVE BOARD MEETING
A.V.D.A.
November 26, 1990
A meeting of the Arkansas Valley Ditch Association Executive Board was held November 26, 1990 at the Melon Valley Inn, Rocky Ford, Colorado. The meeting was called to order at 7:00p.m., with the following members and guests present:
Bill Caldwell Highline Tom Richardson President, Bessemer Pete Pisciotta Bessemer Steve Malott Catlin Frank Mienski Catlin Quentin Smith Oxford Clark Stover Oxford Elmer Bauman Catlin Wayne Whittaker Catlin Ed Blackloom Ft. Lyons Kent Reyher Ft. Lyons Ron Callahan Ft. Lyons Carl Genova Bessemer Bill Mullen Bessemer Bud O'Hara Pueblo Water Board Gary Bostrum Colorado Canal Vernon Proctor Highline Richard Estep Highline
President Richardson stated that the purpose of the meeting was to decide if we wanted to hire West Inc. to study the Colorado Springs computer model, as they proposed in a letter dated November 7, 1990. They proposed to review and critique the Colorado Springs computer model at a cost of $15,000.
Ft. Lyon proposed that they would pay 1/3 of the cost. They would lobby Hollbrook Canal Co. to share in the remaining cost along with A.V.D.A. and others if we could get them.
On motion by Mr. Milenski, second by Mr. Smith and carried that we accept Ft. Lyons proposal and authorize Carl Genova to contact West Inc. to get them started.
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfull submitted,
Mullen, Sec—Treas., A.V.D.A,, ARKANSAS VALLEY DITCH ASSOCIATION Annual Meeting
The meeting was called to order by President Smith at 10:10 a.m., at the Melon Valley Inn, Rocky Ford, Colorado with the following board members present:
Quentin Smith, President Oxford Tom Richardson, Vice-President Bessemer Carl Genova Bessemer Frank Milenski Catlin Bill Caldwell Highline Bud O'Hara Pueblo Water Board Gary Bostrum Colorado Canal also present: Vernon Proctor Highline Pete Pisciotta Bessemer Earl Asbury Bessemer Pete Juba Board of Water Works, Pueblo Steve Malott Catlin Carl Allen Catlin Stanley Teddy Highline Richard Estep Highline Elmer Bauman Catlin Bert Nesselhuff Highline Rex Mitchell Attorney William Mullen, Sec. Treas. Bessemer
The minutes of the last annual meeting were read and approved.
The Secretary went over the financial report and on motion by Mr. Richard- son, second by Mr. Caldwell and carried, the minutes and financial report were approved.
The secretary went over the budget for 1990. After Mr. Mitchell gave his opinion on approximate costs of litigation, on motion by Mr. Milenski, second by Mr. O'Hara, and carried, the amended budget of $86,145.00 was approved.
President Smith then asked for nominations for President. Mr. Milenski nominated Tom Richardson, Mr. Genova moved that the nominations be closed and 3. unanimous ballot be cast for Mr. Richardson. Second by Mr. O'Hara, the motion carried. The following were then elected. Mr. William Caldwell -Vice-President Mr. William Mullen - Sec.-Treas.
Mr. Mitchell then went over Aurora's plan for using their water at 95cfs. in 1990, 85cfs. in 1991, and 80cfs. in 1992. On motion by Mr. Caldwell, sec- ond by Mr. O'Hara and carried to approve Aurora's plan.
On motion by Mr. Proctor, seconded by Mr. Pisciotta, and carried to af- firm the Executive Board's discussion to send a letter to the Conservancy District asking for action on 40,000 A.F. storage for winter water. We may have to request an extension on the winter water decree. Mr. Mitchell then discussed some of the pending cases and problems Colorado— Kansas is having with engineering.
On motion by Mr. Milenski, second by Mr. O'Hara, and carried to write a resolution of appreciation to Quentin Smith.
Mr. O'Hara suggested that there needs to be more cooperation between ag— riculture and City because of all issues facing all water users.
On motion by Mr. Caldwell, second by Mr. O'Hara, and carried to approve the audit committee's report of 1989 bills.
Meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m.
13,pectfu1ly submitted,
Mullen, Sec—Treas., A.V.D.A. MEETING NOTICE
The annual meeting of the Arkansas Valley Ditch Association will be held Wednesday, February 6 1991 at the Melon Valley Inn, Rocky Ford, Colorado.
AGENDA
1. Call meeting to order.
2. Minutes of 1990 annual board meeting and Executive Board meetnu.
3. Financial Report for 1990 year.
4. Projected budget for 1991.
)• Status of A.V.D.A. for 1991.
6. Appointment of Executive Committee for 1991.
7. Election of Officers for 1991.
8. Audit of bills for 1990.
9. Affairs relative to A.V.D.A.
10. Adjouni.
William 0. Mullen, Secretnry—Treasurer A I- I- : — r r riz; Is,
°91'/)'62't4G
„c2 . L-5/17 ri L C,,st t-, Aaf.J--7v)11 ter5 Cc2ZciEw6e Cfix-v? 4—
C,7 --
13 rt-b OF (-13 3rAt
Tra—
id mtcicR_ Cci) 6-c Ccl 500, \z„.;, Fa 4d)c,..15 ntiy 4', 5k,
E re21c' 1,?,e
//14?1',;5;
e-CA-44cD -a ? 1/ n2( 40-7(,--(
O'cU4-L
c A . C pyfrua --7e2ae_ )-u\ firtt- Ccold.(_ 6 e-
v. Eily/3, er) E t2 T e,-ss &jeer r, C2 jg C c22/c.,rcx c1 kia t- (0. szr irofr; ett.,)L
it Artef. /d7er- g,://i4/;_s /sT /?'
ve.a y>1,7;-c(4-L_ fit"Z. 7itzAtz4.10 LP1), A A special meeting of the Arkansas Valley Ditch Association Executive Board and Mr. Rexford L. Mitchell, A.V.D.A. attorney and Mr. John Wittemyer, attorney for the applicants, Colorado Canal Companies, was held September 18, 1985 at the law offices of Mitchell & Mitchell, Rocky Ford Colorado.
Members of the Executive Board present:
Quintin Smith Oxford Farmers Ditch Co. Frank Milenski Catlin Canal Co. Leo Pollart Amity Mutual Irrigating Co. Bob Hamilton Colorado Canal Company Bud O'Hara Pueblo Board of Water Works
Also present were:
Lewis Davis Amity Mutual Irrigating Co. Carl G. Genova Bessemer Ditch Co. John Schweizer Jr. Catlin Canal Co. Wayne W. Whittaker Catlin Canal Co. Elmer Bauman Catlin Canal Co. Pete A. Pisciotta Bessemer Ditch Co.
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the stipulations proposed to the appli- cation filed by Colorado Canal Company - 84CW62, application of the Lake Meredith Reservoir Company - 84CW631 and the application of the Lake Henry Reservoir Company 84CW64 ["Colorado Canal Companies"]. The Colorado Canal Companies have applications pending before the Water Court, division number two [2], to a change of water right, or to adjudicate existing and proposed rights of exchange and substitution. Colorado Springs, as contract purchaser of a majority of these water rights is a participant as co-applicant. Ditch The Southeast District, Public Service, Holbrook Canal and the Arkansas Valley Association are participating in these proceedings to insure that their water rights are not injured as a result of these applications. These entities have concluded that their interests will be protected without further litigation, if the applicants final decree reflects the conditions and limitations as set forth in the applicants draft proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Judgement and Decree dated August 8, 1985 with these stipulations attached.
Mr. Rex Mitchell, A.V.D.A. attorney, stated that he and Mr. Frank Milinski had attended numerous engineering conferances relating to this case. The had discussed the concerns of the A.V.D.A. with Mr. John Wittemyer, attorney for the applicants. It was the conclusion of the parties involved that the stipulations as proposed would satisfy these concerns.
Mr. Mitchell and Mr. John Wittemyer then reviewed the stipulations with the A.V.D.A. Executive Board.
Mr. Wayne Whittaker raised questions about 1-a. These related to the decreed storage capacity under the Meredith and Henry Storage Rights, also the timing of exchange opportunities and the legality of carrying forward stored water derived from changing the Colorado Canal direct flow right to storage. He felt that 1-a needed additional language clarifications to address these concerns.
Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Whittemyer agreed to attempt to draft these changes.
The rest of the stipulations were accepted by the A.V.D.A. Executive Board as written.
An additional paragraph [Z] was proposed - Any winter water due Colorado Canal Entities, which is changed from agricultural to municipal use would be subject to a return flow schedule, and released to the river during the irrigation season. [12% in addition to 18.1% consumptive use factor.]
The proposed stipulations are attached and made a part of these minutes.
Respectfully submitted,
Carl G. Genova Secretary-Treasurer COG/pt Enclosures 5-1,1-7q,/*e(
DISTRICT COURT, WATER DIVISION NO. 2, STATE OF COLORADO
Case Nos. 84CW62, 84CW63 and 84CW64
STIPULATION
CONCERNING THE APPLICATION FOR WATER RIGHTS OF THE COLORADO CANAL COMPANY and FOXLEY & CO., Majority Stockholder, and THE CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS,
IN CROWLEY, PUEBLO, LAKE, CHAFFEE, FREMONT, EL PASO, AND OTERO COUNTIES. Case No. 84CW62
CONCERNING THE APPLICATION FOR WATER RIGHTS OF THE LAKE MEREDITH RESERVOIR COMPANY and FOXLEY & CO., Majority Stockholder, and THE CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS,
IN CROWLEY, PUEBLO, LAKE, CHAFFEE, FREMONT, EL PASO, AND OTERO COUNTIES. Case No. 84CW63
CONCERNING THE APPLICATION FOR WATER RIGHTS OF THE LAKE HENRY RESERVOIR COMPANY and FOXLEY & CO., Majority Stockholder, and THE CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS,
IN CROWLEY, PUEBLO, LAKE, CHAFFEE, FREMONT, EL PASO, AND OTERO COUNTIES. Case No. 84CW64
THIS STIPULATION is made and entered as of the day of , 1985, by and between The Colorado Canal Company ("Colorado Canal Company"), The Lake Henry Reservoir Company ("Lake Henry Company"), and The Lake Meredith Reservoir Company ("Lake Meredith Company"), and which three companies are hereinafter collectively referred to as (the "Colorado Canal Companies"), the City of Colorado Springs ("Colorado Springs"), the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District ("the District"), Public Service Company of Colorado ("Public Service"), Holbrook Mutual Irrigating Co. ("Holbrook"), and the Arkansas Valley Ditch Association (the "AVDA").
RECITALS
The Colorado Canal Companies, on behalf of themselves and their shareholders, have presently pending before the Water Court, Water Division No. 2, State of Colorado, applications for Colorado Canal Company, Lake Meredith Reservoir Company, Lake Henry Reservoir Company and Foxley & Co. Case Nos. 84CW62, 84CW63, 84CW64 Page 2 change of water right or to adjudicate existing and proposed rights of exchange and substitution in which the District, Public Service, Holbrook and AVDA have appeared in opposition to the granting of the requested relief. The application of The Colorado Canal Company is 84CW62; the application of The Lake Meredith Reservoir Company is 84CW63; the application of Lake Henry Reservoir Company is 84CW64. Colorado Springs, as contract purchaser of a majority of the capital stock of the Colorado Canal Companies, is participating as a co-applicant in these proceedings. The Colorado Canal Companies and Colorado Springs will hereinafter be referred to as (the "Applicants").
The District, Public Service, Holbrook and AVDA are partic- ipating in these proceedings to ensure that their water rights will not be injured as a result of such proceedings. So long as the limitations hereinafter set forth are observed, the District, Public Service, Holbrook and AVDA have concluded that their interests will be adequately protected, the time and expense of further litigation can be avoided, and their best interests will be served by withdrawing from further proceedings.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties to this stipulation (the "Parties") agree as follows:
1. Applicants agree that any final decree entered in their consolidated proceeding, Case Nos. 84CW62, 84CW63 and 84CW64, shall contain conditions and limitations substantially the same as or no less restrictive than those set forth in Applicants' Draft Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Judgment and Decree dated August 8, 1985, together with the following express provisions or changes:
(a) No more than 26,028 acre-feet of water may be added to active storage in any water year under the 1898 Lake Meredith Storage Rights. No more than 6,355 acre-feet of water may be added to active storage in any water year under the 1891 Lake Henry Storage Right; no more than 2,000 acre-feet of water may be added to active storage in any water year under the September 10, 1900 Lake Henry Storage Right, and no more than 3,561 acre-feet of water may be added to active storage in any water year under the May 15, 1909 Lake Henry Storage Right. Water in storage at the beginning of a water year shall not limit that year's diversion. Afe,v62d, 67A 6r1 0( 4.,A, (b) The waters which are the subject of the above applications which are determined to be the historically consumed quantities of Applicants' water rights may be totally consumed in the future for any beneficial use at any location so long as the person applying the water maintains dominion and control over the water after its initial use. The Parties reserve the right to challenge the identifica- tion and quantification for reuse of consumptive use water. This provision is accepted by the Parties only in the peculiar circumstances of this case and is in no way a waiver by the Parties of their position with respect to reuse of native water; further, this provision shall not create a precedent with respect to any other case. (c) Applicants have a right to exchange Lake Meredith water from the Lake Meredith Outlet Canal to the Colorado Canal headgate under priority date of March 9, 1898. (d) Applicants have the rights to exchange, subject to the conditions of this decree, from the Lake Meredith Outlet Canal to and above Pueblo Reservoir with a 1984 filing for decree date and a 1981 appropriation of exchange date. Applicants' exchange shall be junior to valid senior exchanges; reserving, however, to Applicants all rights, if any, to challenge any competing exchange. (e) Applicants shall install and maintain measuring devices and keep and provide records delivered in timely fashion to the Division Engineer, which devices shall include the following: an accurate weather station in the vicinity of Lake Meredith Reservoir collecting and recording data on temperature, precipitation, barometric pressure, wind, humidity, and pan evaporation rates; the existing flume and recorder near the Colorado Canal headgate; a flume and recorder at the Lake Meredith Outlet Canal; lake-level recorders on Lakes Meredith and Henry; in the event an accurate measuring and recording device is ever not in place on the Fort Lyon Storage Canal down canal from the wasteway which carries Lake Meredith Outlet Canal releases to the Arkansas River, a flume and recorder which shall be operated at such time as Lake Meredith outlet water is being carried in the Fort Lyon Storage Canal; measuring devices above Lake Meredith Reservoir on Bob Creek and the Lake Meredith Reservoir Inlet; and such other measuring devices and records as may be deemed necessary by the Division Engineer to effectively administer this change and exchange. Should Colorado Canal Company, Lake Meredith Reservoir Company, Lake Henry Reservoir Company and Foxley & Co. Case Nos. 84CW62, 84CW63, 84CW64 Page 4 Applicant or successors of its shareholders ever pump or divert water directly from Lake Meredith or Lake Henry, such pumping or diversion shall be appropriately measured. (f) Appropriate transit losses and transit loss credits, if any, shall be determined by the Division Engineer. (g) Applicants or shareholders of the Colorado Canal Companies shall obtain the legal right to use Pueblo Reser- voir prior to the operation of exchanges into Pueblo . Reservoir. (h) Historic return flows during the study period of 1954 through 1983 under the historical operation returning to the Arkansas River shall not be diminished by any future operation, modification or enlargement of the Colorado Canal, Lake Henry Reservoir or Lake Meredith Reservoir without keeping the river whole on a daily basis. (i) Once the use of water with respect to any share of stock in any of the Colorado Canal Companies is changed to non-irrigation use, the obligation to make return flow releases to the Arkansas River pursuant to Section 18.1 with respect to such share shall commence and continue there- after, regardless of whether such waters are ever again used for irrigation purposes. Lands as to which shares are changed to non-irrigation use shall be identified by the shareholder making the change to non-irrigation use and thereafter shown on a map kept at the offices of the Colorado Canal Companies, a copy of which shall be furnished to the Parties. Such lands shall be dried up and share- holders shall thereafter use no wells to irrigate such lands (for which shares have been changed to non-irrigation use) unless prior Water Court approval for a bona fide plan for augmentation is obtained or water is leased or purchased from sources other than the Colorado Canal Company share- holders, except for shareholders whose shares have been converted to non-irrigation use; however, water rights in the Colorado Canal Companies used for irrigation purposes may be relocated on an acre-for-acre basis to such lands, provided return flows to the Arkansas River will not be reduced by the change of irrigated acreage and the lands from which such waters are relocated shall thereafter be considered the dried-up lands. Colorado Canal Company, Lake Meredith Reservoir Company, Lake Henry Reservoir Company and Foxley & Co. Case Nos. 84CW62, 84CW63, 84CW64 Page 5 (j) The rate of flow or release through the Lake Meredith Outlet Canal shall be changed from 350 c.f.s. to 400 c.f.s. in paragraphs 18.12.1 and 18.12.2 and related paragraphs. (k) The word "instantaneous" shall be stricken in Section 11.3 on page 6 of the August 8, 1985 Draft Decree. (1) With respect to each share of the Colorado Canal Companies, the decree shall be subject to reopening for twenty (20) years from the conversion of that share to non-irrigation use. After such twenty-year period, the terms of the change decree entered shall not be modified so as to reduce the yield for non-irrigation use from shares which have been converted to non-irrigation use for more than twenty (20) years under the terms of the change decree. The Colorado Canal Companies, on or before February 1st of each year, shall give written notice to all parties, the Division Engineer and the Water Court specifying, by share- holder, all shares converted to non-irrigation use, the date on which converted and the date on which such 20-year period shall expire. (m) Applicants' rate of exchange when exchanging by utilizing releases from the Lake Meredith Outlet Canal shall not exceed the release rate from the Lake Meredith Outlet Canal, together with the applicable transit credit, if any, recognized by the Division Engineer. Applicants' exchanges under this decree shall occur only from the Lake Meredith Outlet Canal and not from the headgate of the Colorado Canal. (n) This decree is subject to the stipulation, dated December 28, 1984, between Colorado Springs, Applicants, and others in Case No. 84CW179. (o) The exchange as against the natural river flow from the Lake Meredith Outlet Canal to and above Pueblo Reservoir shall occur only when there is a flowing river at all points between the point of discharge and the point of storage, and only when the Division Engineer determines that implementation of such decreed exchange will not injuriously affect the owners of or persons entitled to use water under a vested water right or a decreed conditional water right. Colorado Canal Company, Lake Meredith Reservoir Company, Lake Henry Reservoir Company and Foxley & Co. Case Nos. 84CW62, 84CW63, 84CW64 Page 6 (p) Until any deficits in return flows owed to the river are cured, Applicants shall divert no water from any source into the Colorado Canal headgate on behalf of any shareholder of shares converted to non-irrigation use and as to which shares the return flow releases pursuant to Section 18.1 are not current, except waters to cure such deficit. (q) Applicants have no right to compel the District or the Bureau of Reclamation to take any action which creates exchange opportunities for Applicants. (r) Seepage from Lake Meredith is tributary to Horse Creek and the Arkansas River, and any references to "non- tributariness" in the decree shall be deleted. (s) The assumptions of maximum irrigation efficiency in Table 11, Page 21, of the W.W. Wheeler report entitled "Colorado Canal, Lake Meredith, Lake Henry Change of Water Rights," revised August 1985, shall be revised to read: May - 60%, June - 65%, and July - 70%. All calculations affected by these assumptions shall be appropriately revised. (t) In the calculation of consumptive use and return flows from irrigation of lands irrigated with Lake Meredith waters, it shall be recognized that historically Lake Meredith waters were twice subject to seepage in the Colorado Canal: once when diverted to storage and again when exchanged and rediverted for actual application. To ensure maintenance of historic return flows from this second canal loss, Section 18.10 shall be revised to provide: Any stockholder of the Lake Meredith Reser- voir Company using Lake Meredith Storage Rights water for purposes other than agricul- tural irrigation shall, in addition to the requirement for incremental lateral loss, leave twelve percent (12%) of their Lake Meredith Storage Rights water to make up incremental canal loss. This water shall be considered stored in Lake Meredith Reservoir space owned by shareholders using water for non-irrigation purposes, and shall bear its pro rata evaporation and seepage losses. Such water shall be released for exchange with exchanges for agricultural purposes within that water year. Any portion not so S Colorado Canal Company, Lake Meredith Reservoir Company, Lake Henry Reservoir Company and Foxley & Co. Case Nos. 84CW62, 84CW63, 84CW64 Page 7 released shall be delivered to the river at the conclusion of the water year or as otherwise directed by the State Engineer. At such time as there is no irrigation use under the Colorado Canal, such water shall be released to the Arkansas River in equal daily amounts for the duration of the water year commencing on May 1. (u) The words "or by other sources" shall be inserted in the third line of Section 18.1 after the word "river". (v) A provision shall be inserted in the final decree reflecting the conditional nature of the proposed exchange rights and requiring a showing of diligence every four years as required by statute until made absolute. (w) Section 18.9 of Applicants' Proposed Decree shall be revised to provide: Any stockholder using water for purposes other than agricultural irrigation shall, so long as water is being used under the lateral where the shares were historically distrib- uted, leave five percent (5%) of their water from each such lateral to make up incremental lateral loss. The aggregate amount of such water shall be distributed among the various laterals at the direction of the Proxy Group in such a way as to conform as near as may be to the variation of losses among laterals. However, the aggregate amount of water so left shall never exceed five percent (5%) of water used for purposes other than irriga- tion, and this upper limit shall be reduced by multiplying by a fraction, the numerator of which is the number of shares used for irrigation purposes at that time, and the denominator of which is the number of shares owned by the Proxy Group as of the date hereof. To the extent diverted under a storage right, this water shall be considered stored in reservoir space owned by share- holders using water for non-irrigation purposes, and shall bear its pro rata evapo- ration and seepage losses. Such water shall Colorado Canal Company, Lake Meredith Reservoir Company, Lake Henry Reservoir Company and Foxley & Co. Case Nos. 84CW62, 84CW63, 84CW64 Page 8 be released with runs for agricultural purposes during that water year. (x) Accounting, operations and administration under this decree shall be on a daily basis. Computations made on a weekly or monthly basis shall be divided, as appropriate, to determine the average daily amount. (y) Section 18.11 of the proposed decree preceding and including "NEVERTHELESS" shall be stricken, the "a" in "all" shall be capitalized, and the section shall begin at that 'point. 2. Further participation by the District, Public Service, Holbrook and AVDA shall be limited to ensuring that the provi- sions of this stipulation are recognized and incorporated into any final decree or as otherwise agreed in writing. MOSES, WITTEMYER, HARRISON AND WOODRUFF, P.C. By John Wittemyer, 42589 P. 0. Box 1440 Boulder, Colorado 80306 Telephone: (303) 443-8782 ATTORNEYS FOR COLORADO CANAL COMPANY, LAKE MEREDITH RESERVOIR COMPANY, and LAKE HENRY RESERVOIR COMPANY 4. 4 ,. • Colorado Canal Company, Lake Meredith Reservoir Company, Lake Henry Reservoir Company and Foxley & Co. Case Nos. 84CW62, 84CW63, 84CW64 Page 9 _ FAIRFIELD AND WOODS By Kevin B. Pratt, #9328 1600 Colorado National Building 950 Seventeenth Street Denver, Colorado 80202 Telephone: (303) 534-6135 ATTORNEYS FOR SOUTHEASTERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT JAMES G. COLVIN, II City Attorney HORN, ANDERSON & JOHNSON By Gregory L. Johnson, #488 Michael J. Gianunzio, #9741 James J. DuBois, #013206 840 Holly Sugar Building Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903 Telephone: (303) 632-3545 ATTORNEYS FOR THE CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS John U. Carlson, #2649 1 One United Bank Center 1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 2750 Denver, Colorado 80203 Telephone: (303) 861-9000 SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR THE CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS rTry;,:).1.7 7R7.-7P777,1-- ; ,;s. AU G 1 1984 UL —J FAIRF'tE DISTRICT COURT, WATER DIVISION NO. 2, COLORADO L s 4— 2 - CASE NO. 84CW62 STATEMENT OF OPPOSITION CONCERNING THE APPLICATION FOR WATER RIGHTS OF: THE COLORADO CANAL COMPANY and FOXLEY & CO., majority stockholder, IN CROWLEY, PUEBLO, LAKE, CHAFFEE, FREMONT, EL PASO, and OTERO COUNTIES. 1. Names and addresses of Objectors. This Statement of Opposition is filed on behalf of the persons listed on Appendix "A" hereof, all of whom are owners of, or have a legal or equi- table interest in ownership of, stock of the Colorado Canal Company, Lake Meredith Reservoir Company, or Lake Henry Reservoir Company, as the case may be. and who have consented, through the undersigned attorney, to inclusion in this Statement of Opposition pursuant to C.R.S. 37-92-302(1)(b). 2. Name of ditch of other structure. As recited in the Application filed herein. 3. Grounds of opposition. A. Terms and conditions must be imposed upon the re- quested transfer in order to protect those shareholders who wish to continue to use water under the Colorado Canal system, for its historic purposes, or sell their stock separately from sale of majority stock. "Colorado Canal system" means the irrigation system comprising the Colorado Canal, Lake Henry, Lake Meredith and associated structures. By way of illustration, but not as a complete enumeration, such terms and conditions must address: (1) Increased loss of water from seepage and evaporation which would be suffered by shareholders continuing to use water in the system. (2) Lower head of water in the system with re- sulting operational problems. (3) Maintenance costs would remain the same but may be borne by fewer shares. (OVER) (4) Provisions for fair treatment of minority shareholders wishing to sell stock together with sales by majority shareholders. B. These Objectors reserve the right to set forth addi- tional grounds of opposition related to their interests as share- holders as more facts come to their attention in this matter. 4. Partial ratification. The Application herein was osten- sibly filed on behalf of all of the shareholders. Except as set forth in paragraph 3 hereinabove, the parties to this Statement of Opposition ratify the action taken by the Colorado Canal Company, Lake Henry Reservoir Company or Lake Meredith Reservoir Company, as the case may be, in filing the Application herein. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT F. T. KRASSA. P.C. By Robert F. T. Krassa #7947 Attorney for Objectors listed on Exhibit "A" 760 United Bank Building Pueblo, Colorado 81003 Telephone 542 3945 STATE OF COLORADO ) County of Pueblo ) ss' Robert F. T. Krassa, being first duly sworn upon oath. de- poses and says that he is the attorney for the Objectors listed on Appendix "A", that he has read the foregoing Statement of Opposition, knows the contents thereof, and that the same are true to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief. Subscribed and sworn to before me this •611 day of July. 1984, by Robert F. T. Krassa. „..MT-cpmmission expires April 12. 1988. „‘I " A. : \\(Y1 A R \LICt Notary Pu lic • ^ 760 United Bank Building B Pueblo, Colorado 81003 - r • THE ANNUAL MEETING OF THE ARKANSAS VALLFY DITCH ASSOCIATION WAS HELD ON FEBRUARY 9, 1984 AT THE KIT CARSON HOTEL, LA JUNTA, COLORADO. Members of the Executive Committee present: Leo J. Pollart Amity Mutual Irrigation Co. Tom Richardson EesseTer Irr. Ditch Co. Doyle L. Dillon Las Animas Consolidated Canal Co. Joe Mahaney CF&I Steel Corporation Bud O'Hara Bd. of Water Works of Pueblo Bob Hamilton Colorado Canal Co. Frank Milenski Catlin Canal Co. Quentin Smith Oxford Farmers Ditch Co. Also present were the following: Earl Asbury Bessemer Irr. Ditch Co. Bill Mullen Bessemer Irr. Ditch Co. Pete A. Pisciotta Bessemer Irr. Ditch Co. Kenneth Madison Rocky Ford Ditch Co. Bill Howland Colo. Division of Water Resources Lewis Davis Amity Mutual Irr. Co. Clifford Verhoeff Amity Mutual Irr. Co. Leroy Nickolas Fort Bent Ditch Co. Charles L. Thomson SECWCD Tom Nakayama Highline Canal Co. Lee Hancock Highline Canal Co. Elmer Bauman Catlin Canal Co. Steve Malott Catlin Canal Co. Carl G. Genova Bessemer Irr. Ditch Co. Scott R. Fencannon Mitchell & Mitchell, P.C. Rexford L. Mitchell Mitchell & Mitchell, P.C. Rex Mitchell AVDA Attorney The meeting was called to order by President Quentin Smith at 10:00 A.M. The minutes of the Executive meeting held August 31, 1983 were read and approved. The treasurer's report for the period August 31, 1983 to February 9, 1984 was presented by Carl Genova as follows: Balance August 31, 1983 - $ 535.76 Receipts - 6,335.24 Disbursements - 6,201.51 Balance February 9, 1984 _ $ 669.49 Two outstanding accounts totaled $310.08. Motion for acceptance of the treasurer's report was made by Leo Pollart, seconded by Robert Hamilton and carried as submitted. Mr. Leo Pollart asked if Mr. Rex Mitchell, AVDA Att,rney,- had sent a letter to the Director of Colorado Department of Natural Resources reflecting the AVDA dissatisfaction with Mr. J. William McDonald, Director of the Colorado Water Conservation Board, and also a letter to the Colorado State Engineer protesting the State administration and lack of protection of the Amity Kicking Bird water through the Ft. Lyon Canal to the Kicking Bird storage canal. Mr. Mitchell stated he had discussed the matter with the A.V.D.A. Secretary— Treasurer, and it was concluded until all the facts are known regarding these issues. The letters might not be in the best interests of the Association if sent at this timc. Mr. Mitchell then outlined the present status of litigation involving the A.V.D.A. 79CW178 The case is now on appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court with all participants asking for an appeal including the Applicant, Ft. Lyon Canal Co. It was his understanding the participants in the Voluntary Winter Storage program, including the Ft. Lyon Canal, were nearing an agreement toward a consent decree. If this were possible it would negate the need for an appeal. However, in both 80CW19 and 79CW178, Judge Statler had relied on certain conclusions derived from th-J Westminister vs. Church case involving a change of place for storage. These conclusions were not applicable to either of these two cases and should be appealed to the Supreme Court for clarification. 80CW19 - Amity Case This case will go to the Supreme Court. Main objectors in this case are the Ft. Lyon and Colorado Canals. The A.V.D.A. is not a participant in this case. 82CW85 — Catlin Case The Catlin Board has denied the State request to move their Catlin shares to the Ft. Lyon headgate. The Division of Wildlife has submitted a new plan to the Water Court. The Supreme Court has ruled as an in limine matter that the Catlin Board is the final authority relating to conditions for transfer of the Catlin shares. Judge Tracey ordered the Division of Wildlife to supply engineering relating to their latest plan to the Catlin Board, and it had jut been received. The Catlin Board is reviewing the new plan at this time. A hearing re— garding the new application is expected by late Spring. 79SA38 — Huston Case This case is now up for a re—hearing by the Colorado Supreme Court. Legislature had passed S.B. 429 which says all deep well decrees are valid if filed before Huston. All cases were under a stay which has now been lifted. The bill is an attempt to get decrees which were invalid made valid, and has opened up a host of deep well applications. This is a matter which the Legislature should now act to correct. Water courts have to determine if the deep water is tributary or not. Case No. 83CW18— Application by Resource Investment Group. R.I.G. has now produced their engineering report after many delays. The report is not very detailed and needs to be analyzed. The application has been amended to include other Rocky Ford Ditch Stockholders, and now re— presents 58.3% of the Rocky Ford Ditch Stock. Pre—trial will be set for late summer. Case No. 82CW130 — Application by Jake Broyles. No activity at this time. Case No. 82CW81 — Application by Foxley & Co. No activity at this time. Case No. 82C1J716 — Estate of Marie Skogsberg Application not complete. Need to republish an amended application. Case No. 82CW205 — Application by Upper Arkansas Conservancy District. Referee recommended the application be amended. Date for further hearings has not been set. Case No. 79CW176 — Application by the United States Questions regarding this case have now been answered by the Supreme Court. The U.S. in now setting up pre—trial cases in the water divisions. The A.V.D.A. need appear in Court only in those cases that effect member water rights. Water claimed is insignificant in the most cases. Certain objectors in some areas are making the Government prove their claims. Case No. 82CW212 — Application by the Town of Monument Willing to stipulate conditions for non injury. The possibility of a consent decree for Winter Storage was then discussed. Mr. Doyle Dillon, President of the Las Animas Consolidated Canal Co., said his company was willing to discuss a decree, but the possibility of a minority group from his company filing an objection was possible. Transit losses from Pueblo to Las Animas was their major concern. The Ft. Lyon Share of transit losses associated with the Amity winter water from Las Animas to John Martin is still an unanswered question. It is doubtful the Ft. Lyon Canal Co. would cooperate on this issue. The Resume of Applications for new water rights and amended water rights for the month of December 1983 was then discussed. The Resume contained a number of applications that could jeopardize stream flows. These were 83CW122 through 83CW131, Applications by North Central Energy Co. on the Upper Purgatoriel 83CW136 through 83CW137, Application by Round Mountain water and Sanitation District in the Wet Mountain Valley and 83CW138 through 83CW146, Applica— tion by Charles Helenberg in El Paso County. After discussion, Mr. Mitchell said he would see if there was substantial objectors in any of these cases. The Association could then file objections in only those cases where the objectors were weak. Mr. Doyle Dillon moved the Association file an objection to the applications by the North Central Energy Co. involving the Upper Purgatorie River, it was seconded by Tom Richardson and carried by acclimation. Bill Howland, from the Division Engineer's Office, reported on the present status of the Winter Storage Program as follows. Pueblo Reservoir now contains 266,187 A.F. Participants are now storing in the Joint Use Pool after amounts stored had exceeded 264,000 A.F. Amounts in the Joint Use Pool must be evacuted by April 15th in order to conform to U.S. Bureau of Reclamation regulations. John Martin Reservoir contained 109,775 A.F. The transit loss water for the Amity Great Plains water had been moved to John Martin on February 1. Holbrook Reservoir is now filling and the Ft. Lyon Canal plans to transfer part of thier winter stored water to John Martin Reservoir. Carl Genova reported the State of Kansas had contracted with the engineering firm, Simon and Lee, to do investigative engineering regarding alledged stream depletions by Colorado in the Purgatorie and Arkansas River Basins. The engineering is now completed but results are unknown to Colorado at this time. District 67 and upstream entities are now in the process of negotiating an agreement relating to the revised operation of John Martin Reservoir. The negotiations relate to the timing of the upstream call by District 67 entities. The Financial Report was then reviewed by Carl Genova. After discussion, motion to accept was made by Frank Milenski, seconded by Joe Mahaney and carried. An updated, revised schedule for assessment calls was presented by Carl Genova. The new schedule reflected the changes in the Association membership and structure which had taken place since the last assessment update in 1955. After discussion, a motion to accept at 1/2 base figures was made by Frank Milenski, seconded by Robert Hamilton and carried. President Smith then asked each Ditch Co. to name their representative to the A.V.D.A. Executive Board for 1984. They were named as follows: 1. Bessemer Irrigating Ditch Co. — Tom Richardson 2. CF&I Steel Corporation — Joe Mahaney 3. Pueblo Board of Water Works — Bud O'Hara 4. High Line Canal Co. — Tom Nakayama (23086 Rd. 18, Rocky Ford, CO 81067) 5. Oxford Farmers Ditch Co. — Quentin Smith 6. Buffalo Mutual Irr. Co. — Harry Bates 7. Catlin Canal Co. — Frank Milenski 8. Rocky Ford Ditch Co. — Ed Kidder 9. Colorado Canal Co. — Robert Hamilton 10. Las Animas Consolidated Canal Co. — Doyle Dillon 11. Amity Mutual Irrigating Co. — Leo Pollart 12. Southern Colorado Power Company — Wayne Grooms President Smith then asked for the election of Officers for 1984. Frank Melinski moved that the present officers be retained for 1984. It seconded by Leo Pollart and carried by acclimation as follows: President — Quentin Smith Vice—President — Tom Richardson Secretary—Treasurer — Carl Genova President Quentin Smith then appointed Tom Richardson, Leo Pollart and Lee Hancock as a committee to audit the bills for the months of September 1983 through June 1984. After inspection, Leo Pollart moved for acceptance, it was seconded by Tom Richardson and carried. , • President Smith then asked if there was any further business to be presented before the Association. Hearing none, he adjourned the meeting at 3:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Carl G. Genova Secretary—Treasurer )0 I /. fq,sy (24)p; ta a L../ ARKANSAS VALLEY DITCH ASSOCIATION 711 THATCHER BUILDING PUEBLO, COLORADO 81003 719-544-8584 October 07, 1998 MEETING NOTICE Gentlemen, There will be a meeting of the Arkansas Valley Ditch Association on October 29, 1998, at 1:00 PM, at the offices of the Pueblo Board of Water Works, Pueblo, Colorado. The main topic for discussion will be the Pueblo West Lawn Watering case. Should you have any questions before, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Bill Mullen Secretary/Treasurer or-L4t/ixt:2? ARKANSAS VALLEY DITCH ASSOCIATION 1906 W, Northern Pueblo, Colorado November 12, 1971 NOTICE A meeting of the Arkansas Valley Ditch Association will be held November 17, 1971 at 730 P.M° at the La Junta Municipal Building, La Junta, Colorado. AGENDA 1. Counsel report on Ongoing Litigation a. Merit and Baker b. Bond - District 11 c. City of La Junta d. Others 2. Status of State Engineers a. Rules on wells 3. Other Transfers 4. Financial Report 5. Audit Bills 6. By-Laws per IRS Exemption Lloyd V0 Barnhart Seer, & Treas. THE EXECUTIVE COMMTTEE hlTING OF THE ARKANSAS VALLEY DITCH ASSOCIATION WAS HELD JULY 8, 1971 at 8:00 P.M. at the LA JUNTA MUNICIPAL BUILDING, LA JUNTA, COLORADO Members of the Executive Committee present: Harry C. Nevius Amity Mutual Irr. Co. Harry Bates, Jr. .01 Buffalo Mutual Irr. Co. Tom McCurdy 0.10 Twin Lakes Res. & Canal Co. Lloyd Barnhart ONO Booth-Orchard Grove Ditch Co. Also present were the following: Michael D. White Holland & Hart A. N. Dallimore Bessemer Irr. Ditch Co. Pete A. Pisciotta II It It It William Eowland 40, Amity Mutual Irr. Co. Lane Hackett ••••• Water Dist. No. 67 William Pattie Water Dist. No. 17 Albert Nesselhuf High Line Canal Co. Lee Hancock U II It It Ralph W. Adkins CF&I Steel Corp. Carter Hutchinson OM Colo. Water Conservation Bd. Charles L. Thomson SECWCD The meeting was called to order by President Harry Bates, Jr. Ralph Adkins moved that the minutes be approved as mailed. The motion was seconded by Harry Nevius and carried, The president then called on Sandy White, counsel from Holland and Hart, to summarize the legislature activities in the water field. He reported eleven bills were passed which are of importance to Us and are summarized as follows: SUMMARY OF ENACTED LEGISLATION Presented at the AVDA Special Meeting July 8, 1971 La Junta, Colorado INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: a. The General Assembly has adjourned after enacting scma important water legislation. b. During this last session, Holland & Hart followed 37 pieces of legislation pertaining to water for the AVDA. c. Many pertain to miscellaneous procedural items, e.g., number of copies of applications, how mailed, time limits*, etc. d, For Holland & Hart's report to this AVDA Special Meeting, the firm selected only those bills making significant or substantive changes in water law affecting AVDA members. e. Sahdy White's report concerns 11 bills19 all of which have been signed into law by Governor Love. ILL, 1007: Concerning court procedures regarding applications for water rights. (1969 Act) Signed by the Governor on May 26, 1. Application for a well right: at discretion of water judge, publication of resume need be made only in the county where the well is located. 2° Publication of resumes: at discretion of water judge, he may direct radio and television announcements publicizing importance, meaning and location of publications. 3. Deadline for referees ruling: time limit extended to a full 60 days from cut-off date for statements of opposition° The deadline can be extended by the water judge; no longer any need for Special Master. 4. During his informal investigation, the water referee is to consult with the Division Engineer and prepare a summary of that consultation and file it of record. This is to apply to both future and pending cases which should be helpful in Merit and Baker° H.B. 1008: Concerning Ground Water: Ground Water Management Act (1965).. (1965 Act) Signed by the Governor on April 16. 1, Provides for usupplementaln and ”alternate points of diversion!' wells, 2, Small capacity wells: retains 50 g.p.m. exemption, Three single-family dwellings and irrigation of one acre, Stock watering on range or pasture. c. Used in a commercial business. 3. Pe'rmits to use ground water shall specify the land on which the water is to be used and any change therefrom must be authorized by the Ground Water Commission. 4, Before Ground Water Commission will convert conditional permit to final permit, applicant must furnish maxLmum pumping rate. 5. Commission may publish a list of priorities for a subdivision of a designated ground water basin when it does not affect other portions of the basin. Discontinuance of well diversion: Commission may order, in whole or in part, when: ae Waste is involved. b. Causing material injury to senior wells. 7. Expiration of well permits: a. New ones continue to expire one year after issuance° b. Outstanding ones (issued prior to April 21, 1967) by July 1, 1973, un- less evidence of beneficial use is furnished by July 1, 1973; notice mailed to addressees in State Engineer9s records. H.B. 1009: Application for underground water rights (1969 Act). (1969 Act) Signed by the Governor on April 16, 1. If application requires construction of a well - must be accompanied by permit to construct a well or evidence of denial° If decree issues anyway, then State Engineer shall issue permit° 2. Permit for all wells may be denied if there is no unappropriated water or if material injury to vested rights would occur, 3. Can charge well diversion against surface until July 1, 1972, without securing alternate point of diversion.- H.B. 1160: Exemptions for small capacity wells (1969 Act and Ground Water Management Act), Signed by the Governor on May 22, 1, Reduces exemption for new wells from 50 g.p.m. to 15 g.p.m. 2, Good only for some domestic, stock watering, and business, drinking and sanitary purposed. 3. 50 g pon. remains good for old wells, 2 H.B. 1205: Rule-making power of State Engineer under S.B. 81. Signed by the Governor on June 4, Clarifies rule-,making power: ae Rules will recognize interrelationship between surface and subsurface rights. b. Different rules may be established for different aquifers. S.B. 16: Re-publication of initial tabulation by division engineers. Signed by the Governor on larch 2. 1, Background: After publication of initial tabulation pursuant to S.B. 81 in July, 1970, division engineers were to republish a corrected version of the tabulation in October, 1970. The executive committee of the legislative council directed the State Engineer not to make the republication for several reasons: ae No money. b. Not enough time and insufficient resources to republish. c. Not enough opportunity for examination of the tabulation and objection thereto by water users. 2. Under S.B. 16: a. Revised tabulations now need not be published until October 10, 19730 bo Tabulations may indicate priority on any one stream rather than solely the priority within the division as a whole. S.B. 181 Application for biennial findings of reasonable diligence; time extension. Signed by the Governor on March 31. 1. Background: Originally had to come in with application by June 1, 1970, and every even year thereafter. Many were unaware of requirement and did not come in. 2. S,B 18: Extende time to June 1,p 1972, and tolls the period when con- ditions beyond applicants control prevented filing. S.B. 19: Priorities awarded in any one year. Signed by the Governor on March 2. 1, Previously: Rights gained priority based on. year of decree, regardless of year application made. Unfair to applications which took a long time to be decreed, e,g0 contested or complicated, 20 Under S.B. 19: Priority determined by year of applicaticn. 3. Extends King-X statute for wells to July 1, 1972. S.B. 21: Water Project Construction Fund - Colorado Water Conservation Board, Signed by the Governor on June 4. 1. Boards duties and powers would include: ao Contracts for conservation of water and power, including out-of-state projects on interstate streams, b, Appropriation of water. c. Acquisition of existing water rights. do Making water available to Colorado citizens, by contract for money. 2, Construction Fund: Support Board projects. 3 Projects must have legislative approval, 3 S.B. 22: Removal of time limits on plans for augmentation) Signed by the Governor on March 31. 1. Background: At present, plans for augmentation were referred to referee and there is a moratorium on such applications from July 1, 1971, "-As July 1, 1973, 2, S.B. 22 would: a, Require the water judge to handle the application himself. b. Eliminate the moratorium. S.B. 186: Impediments to stream flow, Signed by the Governor on May 6. 1„. Gives State Engineer/Division Engineers the authority to issue orders to keep streams clear of obstructions which restrict or impede the flow to water users. Enforced by injuntion. 2. The costs of securing such an injunction, including attorneys' fees, shall be paid by the person against whom the order was issued., Mr, White then reported on the status of AVDA ongoing litigation. ONGOING LITIGATION 1. Merit and Baker Well Applications (W-171 18, 199 20 and 22) a. All parties (AVDA, Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy. District, and Merit and Baker) have protested Referee's Rulings b, Originally set for hearing by Water Judge Gobin for 9:30 a.m. on April 26 and 27, 1971, in the Pueblo County Judicial Building. c. Continued on our motion so as to allow passage of H,A. 1007, d. On instructions from Harry Bates, attended Witt deposition in La Junta, e. According to AVDA instructions, Holland & Hart has been walking a tight- rope on this one. We have tried to keep informed about what is taking place, while spending as little time as possible on this matter so as to keep down the legal fees. Essentially, this means riding the coat- tails of the District: (1) We will plan to be at the hearing to make sure that the AVDA's interests are adequately protected. (2) Our last meeting with Chuck Beise was this morning; we reviewed the evidence developed by the District's expert witnesses, (3) In order to take advantage of applicants waiver, Harry Bates agreed to furnish information on Buffalo Mutual Irrigation Co. 9s latest decrees, 2. Venetucci Well Applications (W-103 through W-111) a. AVDA filed the only statement of opposition, b. Referee's hearing could not be scheduled, c, Doe appointed Special Master; hearing in Colorado Springs on April 20, 1971, d, Holland & Hart instructed to attend hearing, e. Referee's ruling, which was not protested by applicant, substantially toned down claims: Generally, the applicant claimed a host of uses but was able to prove only one or two for each well, Acre foot limitations were imposed. One application was denied in its entirety. A 3. Sproul Well Applications (W-112) and Clear Spring Well Application (W-116) were consolidated for hearing by Referee Bob Harrison, who has been appointed as a Special Master. a„ This has turned into a real battle between Colorado Springs developers. b, Hearing has been scheduled for August 3; HU has arranged for W-112 and W-116 to be heard first. 4. La Junta Well Application (W-114) a. AVDA Statement of Opposition was the only one filed, b, First informal hearing was held on March 18, 1971. Because of lack of notice, AVDA was not represented there. 0. Referee's (Wally Doe) jurisdiction extended through the end of April. d. Next hearing set for Monday, April 19, 1971, at 1:30 in the Municipal Building in La Junta; Holland & Hart attended, e. The legally sufficient proof which was presented at the heerings hardly supported the early priority dates claimed. In fact, the city was only able to prove priority dates in the 1950s - 1960s. However, the referee: (1) Did award priority dates which were earlier than those proved: (a) 1875 to 1892 for one well (b) 1899 to 1902 for ten wells (c) 1899 to 1960 for one well (d) 1920 to 1925 for one well (e) 1947 to 1937 for one well (2) Did not impose acre-foot limitations - in essence granting an open-ended water right, (3) Did not consult with Division Engineer as required by law. f. Because of the problems inherent in the Referee's Ruling and the award of water rights which were not proved, H&H filed a simple Statement of Opposition in this matter within the time limit in order to keep the AVDA's options open, Mr. White discussed the Phelps' application for phrealophytes removal. Re said he felt the theory is sound, but the big problem here is the referee's ruling which awards the right "not subject to the call of the river," In effect, this creates anew class of water rights and makes this 1971 decree the oldest right on the river. This ruling will certainly encourage more similar applications on the river. It is possible to reopen a case such as this on the grounds of excusable neglect. Mr. White said he would meet with Chuck Boise, SECWCD Counsel, after their meeting and discuss possible action, On new applications, Mr. White called attention to W-294 and W-309. W-294 is a plan for augmentatjon by Noble Friend, et, al,, and deals with ditches dating back to 1870 which will be consolidated and alternate points of diversion granted. W-309 is a plan for augmentation including exchange requested by Gates Land Co. in El Paso County. Mr. White reported that these are out of the ordinary and silould be studied. All parties involved have agreed to refer the Booth Transfer to Judge Gobin for his action. Discussion then followed on the financial condition of the AVDA. The legal expense has been considerably more because of the involvement in several transfer proceedings. It was the feeling of the members they could not change the budget or assessment for the year but agreed it would be necessary to have a special call in early 1972 to reduce the remaining 1971 balance on legal expenses-, 5 Mr., White then asked for instruction on matters pending. Sproul and Clear Spring hearings will be August 3, 1971 and Mr. White was instructed to attend, There will be a full trial setting for the La Junta well case and Mr. White was instructed to attempt to set the hearing date by correspondence, On Merit and Baker, the instructions were to continue working with the SECWCD. The auditing committee composed of Ralph Adkins, Pete Pisciotta and Harry Nevius examined the April, May and June bills and recommended their approval, The meeting was then adjourned. Lloyd V, Barnhart Sec. et Treas 6 4 . • July billp, 1971 Lloyd Barnhart, salary less S. S. $130 $ 28,32 plus telephone calls $4,62 Colo. State Engineer, July rent 47,50 M. Helen Bever, salary less Fed; $9,30, Sr. S. $8.03, State $1,49 plus pOstage $32,00 16768 City Clerk, City of La Junta, Janitor service, AVDA meeting July 8, 1971 2,00 Holland & Hart, on account, statement dated March 4, 1971 500,00 Internal Revenue, 2nd quarter Bever $69.40, Barnhart $3,90, Companys share $32,50 105,80 Mountain Bell, Bates Credit Plan .51 '$7 -g3178r August bills, 1971 Lloyd Barnhart, salary less S. S. $1.30 $ 23,70 . M. Helen Bever, salary less Fed. $9,30, S. S. $8.03, State $1.49 plus postage $3200 167,68 Jesse Stokoe, Misc. Expense, Vacation, daily reports 60,00 Colo. State Engineer, August rent 47,50 Holland & Hart, on account, statement dated 3/4/71 500,00 Cope Office Supply, duplicating fluid 7.35 Mountain Bell, Bates Credit Plan 11,45 $ 817,6g September bills, 1971 Lloyd Barnhart, salary less S. S. $1,30 $ 23.70 N. Helen Bever, salary less Fed. $16,603. S. Sr. $10,,40, State $2,66 plus postage and postcards $47,00 21734 Colo. State Engineer, September rent 47.,50 Holland & Hart, statements dated 3/4/71 and 3/25/71 1v000„00 . Colo. Dept. of Revenue, 3rd quarter, Bever $5,64 5,64 ar23177ig October bills, 1971 Lloyd Barnhart, salary less S. S. $1,30 $ 23.70 M. Helen Bever, salary less Fed. $16,60, S. S. $10.41, State $2.66 plus postage $32,00 202.33 Colo. State Engineer, October rent 47.50 Holland & Hart, on account, statement dated 3/25/71 500,00 Internal Revenue, 3rd quarter Bever $61,67, Barnhart $3.90, Companyfs share $30.37 95.94 Cope Office Supply, Copy paper, Envelopes, Duplicating fluid, Plain Master Sets, and Hand cleaner 55.78 r752575 ARKANSAS VAILFY DITCH ASSOCIATION c/o Paula Tucci 1206 34th Lane Pueblo, Colorado 81006 =TING NOTICE The annual meeting of the Arkansas Valley Ditch Association will be held Wednesday, January 18, 1988 at the Capri Motel, U.S. Highway 50 East, La Junta, Colorado, beginning at 10:00 A.M. ADGENDA 1. Call meeting to order. 2. Minutes - 1988 annual meeting held January 23, 1988 and Executive Board meeting held June 20, 1988. 3. Financial report for 1988 year. 4. Projected budget for 1989. 717. Appointment of Executive Committee for 1989. 6. Election of 1989 officers. 7. __Committee to audit 1988 bills. 8. Re- Mitchell, A.V.D.A. Attorney. Status of pending litigation involving A.V.D.A. A. C.717e no. 87-CW163 - City of Aurora - Application for appropriative right A of exchange. (R.I.G. waters). B. Case no. 3.7-cw-70 - Application by Aries Properties, involving CF&I, Minnequa and Union Ditch Waters. Case nos. 86-CW-117-118 - Application by City of Colorado Springs for exchange, substitution and reuse to extinction of imported waters and also consumptive use waters associated with its purchased Colorado Canal waters. D. Case no. 86-CW-111 - Application by Pueblo Board of Water Works, for an absolute decree for an existing exchange and reuse program involving its transmountain waters. E. Case no. 86-CW-116 - Application by Widefield Homes Water Company, Con- ditional exchange involving transmountain waters. F. Case no. 86-CW-121 - Application of minority share holder.. Rocky Ford _--Ditch Company. G. Case no. 82-CW-85 - Application by Colorado Division of Wildlife, and the Ft. Lyon Canal Co. reguarding an exchange of Catlin Canal waters. Case no. 79-CW-176 - Application by the United States (U.S. Cases). I. Case no.84-CW-207-209 - Application by Gene Hammit for water rights in Colcrado for irrigation in Kansas._ Case nos. 85-CW-54 - Application by Holbrook Mutual Irrigation Co. and 85-CW-123-124 - Dave DeRezza, involving the use of Cheraw Lake waters. K. Case no. 85-CW-14 - Application by Frontier Ditch later appealed to Colo- rado Supreme Court. 87-SA-106 - relates to Colorado jurisdiction of Arkansas River water for use in Kansas. L. Case no. 82-CW-130 - Application by Jake Broyles to exchange stream de- pletion. portion of Kee-See Ditch water rights to Pueblo Reservoir. M. Case nos,. 88-CW-43 - 84-CW-56 - Application by Southeast Colorado Water Conservancy District - Stipulation between Southeastern, Colorado Springs, Pueblo and A.V.D.A., reguarding Southeastern return flow waters below Pueblo. N. Case no. 85-CW-134 - Application by Pueblo West Metropolitan District reguard- ing the exchange and reuse of their transmountain waters. 0. Case no. 88-CW-21 - Application by Purgatoire River Water Conservancy District, reguarding certain changes of the Trinidad Reservoir operating principals which were recommended by the Bureau of Reclamation in their 5 year review. 0000 0 61 od cJL Case no. 88—CW-61-62 — Application for the water rights of the City of Trinidad. Case no. 84—CW-12 — Application by Valco Inc., reguarding their Ramp— Bell Ditch Waters. Case no. 85—CW-114 — Application by Public Service for a reservoir and also upstream exchange. Status of Colorado — Kansas Litigation. Cheraw Lake — Cheraw Lake Control Regulations and water quality standards. 9. December Resume. 10. Other Affairs relative to A.V.D.A. 11. Adjourn. 4., .0 likut,4-v--2\ kt. A • )k.‘ EvA 0./LAL b --t c'0-6 4 ;p p ARKANSAS VALLEY DITCH ASSOCIATION c/o Paula Tucci 1206 34th Lane Pueblo, Colorado 81006 AGENDA 1. Call meeting to order. ry04._ 2. Minutes - 1989 annual meeting. 3. Financial Report for 1989.- 4. Projected budget for 1990. 5. Appointments of Executive Committee for 1990. 6. Election of officers for 1990. 7. Committee to audit bills for 1989. 8. Rex Mitchell - status of litigation involving A.V.D.A. 9. December Resume. 10. Other affairs relative to A.V.D.A. 11. Adjourn. The minutes of the Annual Meeting of the Arkansas Valley Ditch Association, held January 18, 1989 at the Capri Motel in LaJunta, Colorado. Executive Board Members present: Ouentin Smith Oxford Farmers Ditch Co. Frank Milenski Catlin Canal Co. Bill Caldwell Highline Canal Co. Tom Richardson Bessemer Ditch Co. Also present: Bud O'Hara Board of Water Works Paul Frank Amity Mutual Irrigation Co. Bert Nesselhuf Highline Canal Co. John Arnold Highline Canal Co. Don Halffield Las Animas Consolidated Phillip Tollefson Colorado Canal Co. Bill Mullen Bessemer Ditch Association Rex Mitchell A.V.D.A. Attorney and others. President Smith called the meeting to order at 10:10 a.m. The minutes of the Annual Meeting held January 23, 1988 were read, and on motion by Mr. Caldwell, seconded by Mr. O'Hara, and carried, they were approved. The minutes of the Executive Meeting of June 20, 1988 were read and corrected, and on motion by Mr. Richardson, seconded by Mr. Frank and carried, they approved. were The Secretary then went over the budget for 1989 and after some discussion, on motion by Mr. O'Hara, seconded by Mr. Frank and carried, the budget approved. was The Secretary then went over the financial statement, and afterward explained that the discrepency with Wright Water Engineers billing was duo to the fact that we did not receive two billings on the R.I.G. case in July and September of 1985. On motion by Mr. Frank, seconded by Mr. Caldwell and carried, the financial state— ment was approved and is attached. President Smith then polled each Company to name its executive board member 1989. for Amity Paul Frank Bessemer Tom Richardson Catlin Frank Milenski Highline Bill Caldwell xford Quentin Smith Board of Water Works Bud O'Hara Las Animas Consolidated Don Halffield Colorado Canal Phillip Tollefson Centel Wayne Grooms President Smith then asked for nominations for officers for 1989, after which the following were duly nominated and elected Quentin Smith President Thomas Richardson Vice President William Mullen Secretary—Treasurer Mr. Mitchell reviewed the status of the cases that were in litigation, as described in his memorandum of January 18, 1989. The memorandum is attached and made of these minutes. a part On Motion by Mr. O'Hara, seconded by Mr. Milenski and carried, to Genova as Special appoint Carl Member to the Executive Board, and approval resolution. of the following On motion by Mr. O'Hara, seconded by Mr. Arnold and carried, to approve the audit committees report of 1988 bills. The meeting adjourned at 2:30 p.m.