• Home
• About
• News
• Economic Impact
• Legislative Update
• Calendar
• Contact
• Information Links

5B & 5C Archive Work begins after passage of 5B and 5C

Written by Tony Rayl

Thursday, 06 November 2008

Yuma County voters made history in Tuesday's elections, passing ballot questions 5B and 5C in a landslide vote.     Unofficial results show the initiatives garnered more than 70 percent of the popular vote. Ballot question 5B won with 76-percent of the ballots cast in favor, 3,384-1,049, while 5C won with 82 percent of the vote, 3,627-790. (Complete results from Yuma County can be found elsewhere on this website.)     Voter turnout in the county among the 4,949 active registered voters was 93 percent as 4,599 ballots were cast.     “I'm just very happy with the turnout and the voters truly understanding how important this was to the county,” said Commissioner Robin Wiley, one of the key organizers in the formation of the Yuma County Water Authority, and in helping formulate the proposed purchase of senior surface water rights on the North Fork of the Republican River.     “The concern was there would be confusion because this is a complicated issue, but the voters obviously understood how important this was to our future,” Wiley said.     Passage of the $15 million bond issue (5B), and the formation of the Yuma County Water Authority Public Improvement District (5C), means the $20 million buyout of the senior surface water rights along the North Fork of the Republican River will proceed.         It also means the threat of shutting down thousands of high-capacity wells in Yuma County will go away, as the petition to do just that by the owners of the Pioneer Irrigation Company, and some owners of the Laird Ditch, before the Colorado Ground Water Commission will be dropped.     The purchase contract is in place, but will not kick in until the bonds are sold, which is expected to occur in December.     Speaking of the bonds, the YCWA has a $9.5 million loan request before the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) to be used toward the water rights purchase. The CWCB is expected to act on the loan request later this month. The interest rate will be around 2.25 percent, which will reduce the overall interest rate to the county's property owners.     If approved, it will mean the county will have to issue only $5.875 million (including $375,000 for legal and bonding services and fees) in bonds.     A lease agreement with the Republican River Water Conservation District for $5 million, for a 20-year lease on the senior water rights, also is in place, accounting for the balance of the total buyout.

 

Watershed vote on plains
Yuma County could pay $27 million to buy water rights
By Jerd Smith, Rocky Mountain News
Published October 30, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.


More Local News

Man arrested in bludgeoning of woman found in barrel
Denver strip club manager charged with manslaughter
Pickup crash kills Evergreen man
More stories »
Yuma County has sticker shock.
For decades this high plains farm community that hugs the Nebraska and Kansas state lines has drawn water for its homes and its fields from the ground. The water has always been clear and free.
But that's changing.
Voters must decide Tuesday whether to pay nearly $27 million to buy water rights and settle a court case that could have taken the water from many of the county's rich corn fields and its towns.
The case has split the close- knit community. Some angrily wonder why the community must pay to keep farmers in business, with others praying the voters unite and agree to buy the water.
"It's a crying shame it's come to this," said Conrad Bauer, who tests irrigation wells. "But I think we have to vote for it. If it doesn't pass, it could wreck our economy."
In June, lawyers and farmers hammered out a settlement designed to keep at least 1,300 irrigation wells pumping. But it is the 4,893 Yuma County voters who have the final say because they must approve increasing property taxes to pay for the accord.
If the tax measure fails, the case goes back to court. And few expect a different outcome that would keep the wells pumping, or at least pumping at the high levels required by corn and potatoes, another major crop here.
Shutting down the wells likely would cripple the county's booming ethanol industry, as well as close off the municipal wells that serve Wray, Eckley and Yuma.
If the bond issue passes, it will be perhaps the first example of a farm community in which bankers, hairstylists and shoe store owners alike must pay to keep their water, and it will set Yuma County apart from dozens of other Colorado farming communities that have seen their wells sharply curtailed or shut down, the remaining water purchased by cities and piped far away.
Wall Street on the plains?
Dave Keeler, a fourth-generation dryland farmer, is the state water commissioner for the Republican River in Yuma County. He has spent about 300 hours this year trying to negotiate a deal, along with a small posse of state and county water officials, farmers and lawyers.
As autumn wanes and the cottonwood trees shed their bright gold leaves, he's still not certain the community understands the scope of the problem.
"It's hard enough to get two farmers to agree on the color of a dog, let alone this," Keeler said. "We're in virgin territory."
At issue is a small set of century-old water rights on the Republican River that has been injured over the years by the pumping of mass irrigation wells. For decades, the wells, which draw from the Ogallala Aquifer, were believed to operate independently of the river.
But a study triggered by another legal battle involving Kansas, Nebraska and Colorado over the Republican established that the wells' operations were linked to the river and were harming its flows and this historic set of surface water rights that date back to the 1880s.
The surface water owners, who farm about 1,500 acres of the 190,000 cultivated acres in the area, were just two days away from the start of the June 2 trial when the tentative settlement was reached.
Under the proposal, taxpayers will buy the water rights for $15 million. The water will remain in the river to repair any damage done by the wells, allowing them to continue pumping. It also will help Colorado meet its legal obligations to Kansas under the Republican River Compact of 1942.
By the time the bonds are issued and interest is paid, the tab likely will hit $27 million, according to the Yuma County clerk.
Around here, that's big money.
"It just irritates me," said Charlie Briggs, as he finished his breakfast at the Wray Cafe. "It's extortion. It's extorting the whole county."
Thane Greene, another farmer sitting at the next table, feels much the same way. But he said, unlike Briggs, he's going to vote for the bond issue.
"I think we have to. It will buy us time," Greene said.
The water crisis dominates the front page of the Wray Gazette, along with news of girls' softball and the grand opening of an Alco store. Inside, full page ads sponsored by "Water For Our Future" feature dozens of businesses urging a "yes" vote.
But smaller ads, placed anonymously, urge locals to vote "no" on the two-part settlement agreement.
"Of the municipal wells curtailed in the state of Colorado NONE have been shut off," one ad reads. "VOTE NO on 5B and 5C."
Still another reads, "There are NO water conservation provisions with the purchase of this water." Reads another: "An irrigation well in Yuma County uses 8,064,000 gallons in a week. How much water do you use?"
Briggs said he understands why the ads were placed anonymously. "This is a small town. They probably fear for their jobs."
Briggs, like others interviewed, said he's angry that so much money is being demanded from a small community and that the state of Colorado hasn't done more to help.
"I think about the bailout on Wall Street," he said. "They say that's costing every man, woman and child about $2,000 each. Isn't this the same thing?"
Just outside town, Mike Fecht, former president of the school board, takes time from harvesting his potato crop to talk about the bond issue, which he supports. Fecht cultivates 2,000 acres in Nebraska and Colorado.
"It's a two-edged sword," Fecht said. "Are there other ways to fix this? I don't think so. We looked at a lot of different alternatives. Whether folks like it or not, a water right has a market value. Is it too much money or not enough? I don't know. But we're in a situation where it could have a huge economic impact."
Ethanol boom threatened
A recent economic analysis by Colorado State University values the agricultural production of the 190,000 acres affected by the settlement at $170 million, or about 80 percent of the county's total $212 million agricultural sales. Much of that is fueled by the demand for corn-based ethanol.
Paying upward of $27 million for the water is the fair thing to do, said Mike Adamson, one of the two dozen farmers whose Republican River water rights are to be purchased with bond money.
"You're taking a piece of property in my family that we will never - not tomorrow, not in 30 years, not forever - be able to make an income off of. What's that worth? Someone's been taking something from you for 40 years and you're accused of extortion? Excuse me."
Even those who oppose the bond issue, who would like the county to take its chances in court, acknowledge that Yuma County's dependence on groundwater is a problem that must be solved if this important but isolated farm economy is to survive. Yuma is the largest corn-producing county in the state and among the largest in the nation.
And it's not just farmers who are concerned about shrinking flows in the Republican River. The Colorado Division of Wildlife was originally a part of the lawsuit seeking compensation for water rights it also owns on the river. Those rights are critical to a fish hatchery at Stalker Lake, just outside Wray.
Locals were so enraged when the DOW joined the lawsuit against the irrigators that they shut their lands to hunting last spring. The DOW withdrew shortly before the case settled.
Wildlife officials are now looking at other ways to replenish flows for the hatchery because they, like everyone else, believe flows in the river will continue to drop if wells continue their super-sized pumping.
One irrigation well serving 200 acres, for instance, can pump some 1,200 gallons a minute, or 72,000 gallons an hour, Keeler said. That's more than one Denver household uses in six months.
The long-term answer - assuming the bond issue passes - is to curtail the wells, to pump less water, to grow less corn per acre and to find other, less water-intensive crops, say water commissioner Keeler and others.
"These guys are probably the best corn farmers in the world," said Keeler. "But they've been doing things the same way for years. It will require a change in lifestyle."
Battle leaves bruises
Keeler said the people in Yuma County are tough enough for what lies ahead, as strong and resilient as the pioneers who built the irrigation ditches and settled the county.
"Those guys had bark on their butts," Keeler said. "We're survivors out here. We're optimistic, hard-working, forward-thinking people. We could say, 'Let's see how this lawsuit comes out,' or we could say, 'Let's take control of our destiny.' "
Back in town at the courthouse, Yuma County Commissioner Robin Wiley scans a new map showing the three forks of the Republican River as they cross the state line into Nebraska and Kansas.
And he worries.
"I don't know whether it's going to pass," Wiley said. "Some days I think it will. But this is a very complicated issue. I worry that there is a population out there that is confused and when people are confused they vote no."
But there is no confusion over one thing: This water battle has bruised Yuma County in a way that will leave hard feelings for years to come.
Adamson and the other surface-water-right owners have become outcasts over the bond issue.
"I'm polite to them," said one store clerk who didn't want her name used. "But that's all."
Still, Adamson said, he will continue living and working in Yuma County and he believes the purchase of the water rights by locals is the best outcome that could have been found.
"People get angry sometimes. That's OK. You get mad at your own brother sometimes. But I'm still a part of this community. I always will be."
How Yuma County hopes to save its water
* Raise property taxes and issue bonds: About $15 million of bond proceeds would be used to buy a small set of historic water rights on the Republican River. By purchasing the rights, the potential for a mass well shutdown will be averted.
* In the long term, the county hopes to enact conservation measures that will reduce groundwater pumping and stop the drain on the Ogallala Aquifer and the river. If farmers are unable to dramatically reduce water use, neighboring Kansas, with its own court-ordered rights to Republican River water, could eventually demand a mass well shutdown.
* In a separate transaction, the surface water owners would receive another $5 million from the Republican River Water Conservation District, bringing their total take from the settlement to $20 million. The district would then lease the water rights, if the Nov. 4 measure is approved, from Yuma County to help meet obligations to Kansas under the Republican River Compact of 1942.

 

Ballot initiatives 5B & 5C

Watch the Video Interview from CSU of the  Economic Impact the shut down could have

What are they?

1. Is to make the Yuma County Water Authority a Public Improvement District (PID) -What does that mean?  The Yuma County Water Authority currently is not allowed to go into debt.  However if they were a public improvement district (PID) they would become a taxing entity which can finance, construct and maintain public improvements. A PID may be formed to address any type of public improvement or service. It has authority to issue debt and to impose a mill levy against real and personal property within the district.

2. A $15million bond issue to purchase the water rights of users of the Laird and Pioneer ditches.

Background: The Laird & Pioneer Ditch Lawsuit

· The lawsuit is being brought against ground water users in Yuma County claiming that use of the ground water has damaged the water supply of the river, aka surface water, in the Laird & Pioneer Irrigation Ditches.

· It  is requesting the Colorado Ground Water Commission redraw the  boundary lines of the designated basin.

· Basically the lawsuit is asking for all municipal, irrigation, and high capacity commercial wells within 20 miles of the North Fork of the Republican River to be involuntarily shut down without compensation. 

· In this 20 mile curtailment zone there are 1,338 irrigation wells, 11  high capacity commercial wells, and all of the municipal wells for the cities of Eckley, Wray and Yuma are also included.

· Irrigated acres that could be lost in the 20 mile zone account for  approximately 190,000 acres. 

The Solution

Purchase  the surface water rights of the Laird & Pioneer Ditch Companies by the Yuma County Water Authority Public Improvement District (PID)

· The cost to purchase the rights currently is $20,000,000

· The Republican River Water Conservation District will lease the   water from the YCWA for 5 million dollars over a twenty year period which is anticipated to produce roughly 3,000 acre feet of credit per year toward compact compliance.  

· The YCWA (PID) will pass savings on to taxpayers and only need to pass a bond for $15 million this November.

· In order to be successful voters of Yuma County must approve two separate initiatives.

· One is the formation of the Yuma County Water Authority Public  Improvement District (PID)

· The other is approve the $15 million indebtedness.

If either ballot initiatives fails litigation is scheduled to begin in early 2009.

The Cost

· An economic impact study developed by Colorado State University measures the economic loss for the Republican River Basin to be $678 per irrigated acre     retired.

· Using 190,000 acres of irrigation in the 20 mile zone, that translates to over $128 million each year in lost revenue to the area.

· Some of the major employers within the county effected are hospitals, school districts, Murphy Brown, 5 Rivers, Sea Board, M&M coop and Yuma Ethanol

 

Based upon the average soil type value and current assessed value in Yuma County if passed annual taxes would increase by:

Dry Land 160 Acres = $12.94

Grass land 160 Acres =$ 4.69

Irrigated 130 +30 Dry  Land Acres = $ 35.43

$100,000 Home= $  31.84

The Costs that are not so easily quantifiable:

If the ballot initiatives do not pass and the Pioneer & Laird Ditch irrigation companies are successful in their lawsuit:

What happens to the services enjoyed by Yuma County Residents?  Including but not limited to Hospital Districts, Fire Districts, School Districts, Road & Bridge Services? 

If the hog farms, dairies, and feed lots close down due to no water where will those employees work?  How will they feed their families?  How will they be able to stay in Yuma County?

Is your job at risk?

If there are less people living in Yuma County less stores will be needed.  Will your favorite restaurant or coffee shop be able to stay open?  What about grocery stores?  What about filling stations?  Are you going to have to drive to Sterling or Ft. Morgan to get groceries?  

What will happen to your property value?  Will you be able to sell your home and move away if most of the water use is inaccessible in Yuma County or will you have to move and stop making payments on your home and ruin your credit?

Will you be able to afford to stay?

These are just some questions to ask yourself before you vote. 

The Yuma County Water Authority has begun building a website with information on the ballot initiatives click here to visit the site

FAQ about the ballot initiatives

Who can vote?  Any Yuma County registered voter, mineral or property owner that are registered voters of Colorado, corporations within Yuma County are also allowed 1 vote.
How long will the tax last?  The bond is scheduled for a 20 year pay out it may be paid off sooner.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

Can the money be used on anything else? No, it is "ear marked" for the sole purpose of purchasing the surface water.  
How many mills is the bond for ?  4 mills on the assessed value of your property.
What will be taxed?  Property
When is the vote? The questions will be on the General Election Ballot early voting begins October 5th and the General Election Voting day is Tuesday November 4, 2008. 

 

20 Mile Shut Down Zone in Yuma County

DOW pulls out of water litigation  	 
Written by From the Division of Wildlife   
Friday, 30 May 2008
From the Division of Wildlife
 
    The Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOW) has withdrawn from litigation
involving water rights it owns which supply water to the Wray Fish Hatchery.
DOW has identified an alternative water supply option for the Wray State
Fish Hatchery, which if implemented should allow the hatchery to continue to
produce warm water fish for the next 20-25 years.
    The Wray State Fish Hatchery has been in operation since 1937. DOW has
seen a decline in the available water supply at the hatchery's Chief Creek
pipeline diversion in recent years. In response to the declining flows, the
DOW purchased senior water surface rights and implemented water conservation
measures to maintain fish production at the facility. Other surface water
users downstream experienced the same decline in flows and believed it was
due to groundwater pumping from a large number of wells in the Northern High
Plains Designated Groundwater Basin.
    In 2005, the Pioneer and Laird Ditches initiated a hearing with the
Ground Water Commission (GWC) requesting that the wells be administered
pursuant to the prior appropriation doctrine (first in time-first in right)
along with the senior surface rights.
    The DOW believed that joining the GWC proceedings was necessary and
appropriate in order to protect the interests of sportsman and local
economies throughout the state that depend upon recreational fishing
opportunities provided by the Wray State Fish Hatchery.
    The DOW has also been working on alternative strategies for providing
adequate flows to the hatchery that don't rely on shutting any irrigation
wells down, a possible outcome if the litigants were successful.
    The preferred alternative is a combination of surface water sources and
water conservation measures implemented at the hatchery. The surface water
sources include pumping water through a pipeline from the North Fork of the
Republican River (using existing DOW water rights) to the hatchery, while
the conservation measures would include lining the ten un-lined hatchery
ponds to minimize leakage.
    Additionally, the City of Wray has graciously offered the use of some of
its wells for augmentation purposes. The DOW expects that collectively these
measures should provide the necessary water to the hatchery for a minimum of
20-25 years.
    The DOW is estimating the cost of this solution to be approximately $6
million. The DOW has agreed to contribute up to $2 million for the pond
lining because it believes this is an appropriate conservation action to
make the most efficient use of a scarce resource.
    Senator Jim Isgar (D-Hesperus), Chair of the Senate Agriculture, Natural
Resources and Energy Committee; Representative Kathleen Curry (D- Gunnison),
chair of the House Agriculture, Livestock and Natural Resources Committee;
Senator Greg Brophy (R- Wray); and Representative Cory Gardner (R-Yuma) have
agreed to work to secure funding for alternative water sources for the
hatchery as part of a broader solution to Republican River water issues.
    "We are fortunate that these legislators are committed to helping us
solve this problem," said Tom Remington, Director of the DOW. "Their
interest and support allows us to pursue options for solving our water
shortage at the hatchery outside of a courtroom. The Wray hatchery is a
critical piece of our warm water fishing program, which would cost upwards
of $30 million to replace. A comparatively small investment can keep it in
production for perhaps another 25 years without impacting area water users,
something that is very attractive to us because we value our relationship
with the communities of eastern Colorado and recognize the importance of the
agricultural economy."