A DIFFERING VIEW: Well owners are right to hold out for a compromise
Upon reading the July 8 editorial “S. Platte Quandary,” I get the feeling that we well owners should just give up and go away. It’s a feeling we’re used to. We’ve been getting the same from Boulder, Centennial, Greeley and other objectors to irrigation wells.
We farmers don’t give up so easily. Neither should the South Platte Task Force.
Giving up would mean that legislators really did not intend to integrate irrigation wells into the prior appropriation system with its 1969 legislation.
Giving up would mean that they intended to eliminate the wells and all of the beneficial economic activity they create.
When the irrigation wells were drilled, mostly in the droughts of the 1930s and 50s, no permits were required. All anyone had to do was hire a well driller. The state at least passively encouraged well drilling. And senior water right owners weren’t objecting.
Later the 1969 legislation came along, well owners did what the state asked, they got their wells adjudicated and they joined augmentation districts. This worked for over 30 years until the state Supreme Court took away the power of the state water engineer to administer augmentation plans.
Exacerbating the situation, the 2002 drought hit at the same time and 2006 was about as bad if not worse.
Still, there is no need to eliminate an entire class of farmers, those who irrigate with wells. Of course senior water rights should be protected. On the other hand, junior water rights should not be denied water when their rights are in priority and that is exactly what happened for several weeks this spring.
There are solutions to this crisis, although they won’t come easily. But giving up isn’t a solution and the task force needs to see it that way, too.
David Dechant is a resident of Fort Lupton.
Mr. Dechant is right. There are answers to the problem if we have the will. The "rocky's" opinion is understandable, when you look at the Sunday paper and see nothing but real estate ads. Sacrificing an open mind for all that income is just human nature.
The RMN editorial staff has apparently been schooled by the objectors to the wells and probably Justice Hobbs. Perhaps the next time the newspaper staff goes to a Hobbs lecture they should read "The Emperor's New Clothes", before they buy the line of these people hook line and sinker.
The legislature did intend to integrate the appropriation, use, and administration of groundwater and surface water back in 1969, that is the declared policy of the statute. The problem is, the state only embraced and implemented one of five recommended working solutions to accomplish the daunting task of integration, that being augmentation. Wells have been integrated legally by appropriation through augmentation, but have never been integrated physically (hydrologically) in use and administration. Wells are still segregated, or better yet, dis-integrated! Unless and until "integrated use management" is fully engaged and implemented their will be serious conflict.
Posted by Arnie Good on July 21, 2007 06:47 PMI tend to agree with Mr. Dechant's coments on well's. The only thing that has come from all the court room drama is more and more money in pockets of lawyers . The flow of the river has not gone up or will not go up because of the well's being shut off, the river goes up and down because of the water inflows that start with mother nature and in a drought year the river is going to be very low. Farmers are loosing what they need to make a living. I only hope that the State's task force acts soon and the farmers are not forced to give in .
Posted by Jerrold on July 23, 2007 12:22 PMMr. Dechant apparently has the right attitude about the ability to find solutions to the well crisis. The task force with input from all water users, not lawyers, can find solutions. Taking the management of the river away from the state engineers office and placing it in the trust of the water court is a travesty to say the least. Let qualified people who know water manage the river not clueless fools.
Posted by dry and thirsty on July 23, 2007 09:06 PMI believe Mr. Dechant is correct in his assumption on the well usage . The well owners drilled the majority of well in the 1930 to 1950 with the blessing of the state and obtained permits and joined augmentation districts and paid their dues. In 2005 the well owners were told that they could not pump their wells because of lawyers, politicians, judges and our court system ruled it best to sacrifice the few well owners rather than the green country clubs and city faucets. It amazed me this spring when the South Platte River was over it's banks for over 40 days and the state lost all that water flowing out of state. It did not change the plight of the well owner. Now the wells are not flowing and the river is extremely low. I don't believe the water which supplies the wells will automatically "jump up" into the river. Devine knowledge or common sense tell's me that won't happen. Maybe the wells should be pumped. The task force should consider all options, from high mountain lakes, reservoirs, well pumping, conservation, etc. to serve the water needs of all the people in the state and not just the politically incorrect and misinformed.
Posted by Paul J. Ogg, Platteville on July 23, 2007 10:17 PM