Despite a plea by the county commissioners and others, the Upper Arkansas Conservancy District is moving forward to file a water augmentation plan for Custer County in state water court.

A public hearing regarding the matter took place on Wednesday, June 17 in the county courthouse. Some 40 interested persons showed up to voice their opinions on the matter.

The hearing began with an opening statement by UAWCD manager Terry Scanga.

That statement illustrated the benefits of bringing a blanket water augmentation plan to the county.

Scanga said the sources of augmentation water would not result in the dry-up of agricultural land in Custer County.

Instead, said Scanga, the UAWCD would use water from its existing water rights to meet Custer County’s needs.

Scanga further noted a blanket augmentation plan would allow the UAWCD to augment those wells that are currently out of compliance and as such are in need of water.

In 2002, officials with the state engineer’s office met with representatives, with various subdivision homeowners associations and the county commissioners stating noncompliance and as a result the wells needed to be augmented.

Under Colorado water law, individuals and entities gain the right to use water. The first in right is the first in use, said Scanga.

To protect those senior water rights, other users must obtain a legal source of water. Those legal sources of water must be augmented to protect senior water rights from depletion.

Scanga said the blanket water augmentation plan being proposed in Custer County would protect those senior and junior water rights currently in place.

The UAWCD is proposing using the Texas Creek and Grape Creek water drainages to bring the water augmentation plan to the county.

Also in the works is the building of reservoirs along Texas Creek and Grape Creek, however, sites or a time frame has not been established.

In his statement, Scanga also said that the local Concerned Citizens for Custer County organization C-4 has made inaccurate representations about the advantages of postponing the filing of the augmentation plan until after July 1 when new regulations go into effect.

According to C-4, said Scanga, “The new rules will change the disclosure obligations of an applicant in respect to the proposed augmentation plan.”

Scanga continued, “The new rules are no more stringent in requiring the applicant to demonstrate in water court that no injury will occur to other water right owners. It is odd that this citizen’s group has shown little concern about the protection of senior water right owners, which is the whole purpose of augmentation.”

Instead, said Scanga, “The new rules increase the burden on water resource engineers, and therefore the cost of such engineers to all parties.”

Scanga further said, “The new rules would likely decrease the efficiency of the process because the first cases subject to the new rules would likely experience delays and increased costs.”

Lastly, Scanga said the filing of the proposed water augmentation plan would not be an end to public input or public meetings.

“It is the intent of the UAWCD,” said Scanga, “to set up meetings with the assistance of the Custer County commissioners beginning in mid-July.”

He continued, “Input from objectors and water right owners are crucial to the process of fine tuning a plan of augmentation.”

Scanga concluded by presenting a copy of the proposed water augmentation plan to the county commissioners and said the plan was posted on the UAWCD website at www.uawcd.com.

During the public hearing, local attorney Paul Snyder, who was representing C-4, said the group was asking the UAWCD to delay submitting the plan so the county commissioners and others could have adequate time to review it and make recommendations, if needed.

“The plan affects us and the commissioners are our representatives,” said Snyder.

Snyder continued, “I just don’t know why the UAWCD is not willing to operate under the new rules. I think the new rules will serve us.”

Former Custer County commissioner Dick Downey, who was also in attendance, agreed saying that’s what the UAWCD said they would do back in 2003 when the process began.

C-4 vice chair Lockett Pittman also agreed and asked, “Who works for who?”

Pitman then answered that question by saying, “The UAWCD works for the commissioners, so it seems they would want to give the commissioners time to evaluate the plan.”

He concluded by saying, “The issue is not the plan. The issue is giving the people time to evaluate the plan.”

Other attendees made similar comments. They included Tim Kelling and Charles Proctor.

In the end, the commissioners asked the UAWCD to delay filing the water augmentation plan in water court to they could have time to review it.

Scanga indicated the plan would be submitted by June 30.

– Nora Drenner