Letter from Tammy La Vercombe
Water – May 2003 – Colorado Central Magazine
Dear Ed & Martha:
I always enjoy reading the historical pieces printed in Colorado Central, which you seem to enjoy gathering information for and writing.
In the past year, my on-the-backburner concern for who owns Arkansas River rights was pushed to the front burner of my mind following several conversations. Last spring, I attended our daughter, Sadie’s, regional golf tournament at the Salida Golf Club. As soccer moms talk, so do “golf moms,” which I did with another mom from Pueblo. She made a remark about our golf course “being horrible, as it looked so dry,” and I told her about our drought and the lack of irrigation rights for all but the greens.
A water rights conversation ensued, and she proudly announced, “we own the Arkansas River, and that is why our course is far better looking.” Apparently, she meant the Pueblans downstream own the water rights. (But our daughter’s golf score was still the best of that season, crunchy grass and all.)
Later in the year, however, I told a longstanding rancher from Poncha Springs about this conversation, and her jaw dropped. She promptly told me, “you tell that lady the rights are owned much further down the river in Rocky Ford, and have been since the 1800s!”
To make these water right matters worse, I recently watched a Colorado Springs morning news show about moving water from Pueblo to Colorado Springs, and a spokesperson from Colorado Springs seemed to think that THEY had rights superior to Pueblo’s on the Arkansas River.
Then there was information years ago (was it from an earlier Colorado Central?) about ownership in Kansas. Apparently farmers, et.al. downstream along the Arkansas have grandfathered rights and were also needing monies from Colorado — a sort of water rental approach. But, I guess the Arkansas peters out the further you go in Kansas anyway, due to this right and that right.
I suppose if they wanted to, the original, native peoples (the current Southern Ute band, perhaps?) could seek water rights that the white settlers of the 1800s couldn’t even touch, but maybe they thought the river was a blessing, a gift for all — to be shared. The early white settlers (my apologies to area ranchers) must have had “one-up” on the Utes, though, with their fancy, written documents that said they owned this, and they owned that …
Whose River is it anyway?
Thanks
Tammie La Vercombe
Salida
The editor answers
Dear Tammie,
Thanks for the compliments.
As usual in water matters, it’s more complicated than whether Pueblo or Salida or Colorado Springs owns the water. Colorado water is divvied up by a system of prior appropriations, which means that the first person to use the water gets a dated claim, (1852 is the oldest claim in Colorado, and it’s in San Luis).
But if the claimant doesn’t put that water to beneficial use (meaning he doesn’t use it to farm, or build a town, or run a factory), he may lose that right in court. (Because Colorado wants the water to be used to grow crops, towns, industries — and the economy.)
The oldest claims on the Arkansas are out on the plains because that’s where people settled first, but Salida has rights dating back to the early 1880s, which are very good. Cities and towns can also purchase additional senior rights — if they become available.
But water’s not free, and that’s what really complicates our golf course story. Ordinarily, cities try to make municipal golf courses, swimming pools, and the like self-supporting, but Salida’s golf course is too small to generate enough cash to invest in a lot of supplemental water, which isn’t necessarily true in larger cities.
That’s one of the reasons that Salida’s course may look a little crispier than Pueblo’s despite the state-wide drought. We have the luxury of sharing our facilities with fewer people, but that means we’ve got less money to spend on them.
Of course, there are tons of other factors, too, since this is water we’re talking about, but Ed recommends two excellent books on the subject in our book review section this month. And this is a VERY important time for everyone to brush up on the subject.
As you suggest, there is some competition between towns for water, but there is far more competition between types of users, and if this drought continues everybody is going to have to know enough to safeguard their own water.
There are conflicting needs in our valleys. Ranchers, real estate developers, townspeople, industrial water users, the tourism industry, and people who have wells have different needs, but they’re all threatened by drought.
In times of scarcity, competing users need to negotiate — so everyone should know their rights and obligations — because continued drought could mean choosing between our city’s trees, ranchers’ hay crops, rafting and fishing, and new homes and industries.
FOR SOME REASON, many people in Chaffee County seem to think that the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District will protect their interests, but that’s not Upper Arkansas’ role. Water Conservancy Districts are governmental entities that help their communities develop water for subdivisions and irrigation; they also manage water storage, and build water works, and they try to keep their district’s water out of the hands of other regions.
Our area actually belongs to two districts: Upper Arkansas; and Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, which includes a huge chunk of Southern Colorado including Pueblo and Colorado Springs. Upper Arkansas was formed in 1979, however, because it was thought that the interest of the front range cities would come first with Southeastern. Both districts are generous with information and host very good websites.
But water conservancy districts don’t necessarily serve conflicting users equally. In times of scarcity, people have to use less water, but which people is open to debate. Historically, agricultural interests controlled water in Colorado, and many of the water conservancy districts in our state are still dominated by ranchers — as is Upper Arkansas.
Conservancy boards are selected by judges, but recently there have been some attempts to make conservancy boards elected entities — due largely to the needs of a growing tourism industry. Rafting companies, fishermen, tourists and environmentalists generally favor keeping more water in the river and using less on crops). But our state legislature has nixed letting citizens vote for boards because it doesn’t think that most people know enough about water.
And the legislature is probably right. But we’ve got to learn.
LAST YEAR, the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District manager suggested that the City of Salida should quit using outdoor water. Since Salida had adequate reserves at the time, it was never clear why he made the suggestion. But somebody needs to conserve, so why not Salidans?
Because it won’t work.
Expecting Salida to resolve all of our valley’s water problems is foolish, because eighty-five percent of Colorado’s water goes to agriculture, and only 6% typically goes for domestic use. Also, last year Salida’s water engineers said that Salida has very low consumptive usage, which means that almost all of the water we use runs right back into the river, or gets treated so it can be reused in Cañon City. Furthermore, if Salida reduces water usage too much, it loses trees, and trees lower temperatures and make life pleasant.
So if you’re being honest and want to conserve water, you’ve got to suggest more than putting a few bricks in city toilets. In the San Luis Valley there’s been a lot of discussion about better irrigation systems and ditch maintenance. And in Chaffee County (and other rapidly growing areas) there should be a lot more discussion about conservative water development.
There are ways to reduce water losses in our basin, and to encourage low water usage in new subdivisions and to help current users protect their wells. But that has not been a huge consideration for our conservancy district which actually helps newcomers get augmentation for new wells — which may not be in the best interests of our drought-ridden basin.
We need to have a bigger conversation about water in our valleys, one in which everybody participates. But in order to do that, people need to study and understand the issues better. If you want to protect your water, there is no other way.
Martha
P.S. Tammie, I know I’ve gotten on my soapbox and run on about this, but your interest in water is gratifying. Please, everyone, take some time and learn what you can. It’s important.