Modeler to speak today



By RUTH HEIDE

ALAMOSA — Attempts to resolve a precedent-setting court case regarding the San Luis Valley’s first groundwater management sub-district plan continue today in Alamosa.

The sponsoring district, Rio Grande Water Conservation District, is hosting computer modeler Dr. Willem Schreüder today, Tuesday, April 7, at 10 a.m. at the Inn of the Rio Grande in Alamosa. Following the meeting with Schreüder, the sub-district board of managers will meet to discuss its next course of action in answering objectors’ concerns to its management plan.

Schreüder is expected to address some of the points of contention over the proposed management plan for the Valley’s first sub-district encompassing about 174,000 irrigated acres north of the Rio Grande in the closed basin area. One item Schreüder is expected to address, for example, is the ability of the computer model to identify in time, location and amount the impacts of wells on surface streams.

“We need to address the depletions to senior water rights,” said Rio Grande Water Conservation District Attorney David Robbins.

District/Water Judge O. John Kuenhold sent the management plan back to the sub-district board for revisions in February “because it lacks detail, grants discretion with no guidance, fails to acknowledge the replacement of injurious depletions as a priority, and simply is not a ‘comprehensive and detailed plan’.”

The judge checked on the status of the case on Monday and set aside as much as 10 days beginning August 3 for trial.

The judge had scheduled the trial for July 13 but after visiting with the attorneys involved in the case on Monday he moved it back to August to give objectors time to review the sub-district board’s management plan modifications. Kuenhold said he did not want to delay the trial past September, however, because he wanted to have adequate time to rule on the case before the end of the year.

He said he was willing to clear his schedule in September if he had to “because I don’t know of any matter more important than this one.”

The sub-district board hopes to become operational in 2010 and must meet 2009 deadlines to certify assessments to the county treasurers in order to do that, Rio Grande Water Users Association Attorney Bill Paddock told the judge. He said he was nervous about a September trial date for that reason.

The state engineer also plans to finalize rules for well regulation by the end of the year.

The judge will review the status of the sub-district case on April 27. He said at that time he would like to know what the objectors and proponents agree on and disagree on.

He has given the sub-district board until June 18 to submit a modified management plan.

“The sub-district board of managers and their consultants are working diligently to prepare the appropriate addenda to the plan of water management to address the issues that you have so carefully outlined in your ruling,” Robbins told the judge on Monday.

Robbins said the sub-district board does not plan to re-write in its entirety the plan of water management but intends to modify the plan to address specific concerns raised by the objectors and the judge.

Robbins said the judge already approved some portions of the plan such as the fee structure so there is no need to re-write those sections.

Tim Buchanan, representing senior water owners, said his clients plan to be actively involved in the process of revising the management plan. He said ideally his clients and the water district boards would come to an agreement, but if they did not, he wanted time to prepare for the trial this summer.

Attorneys Stephane Atencio and Erich Schwiesow also expressed concern about having sufficient time to respond to changes in the plan.

Robbins said he appreciated Buchanan’s offer to participate in revising the plan. Robbins added that he hoped other objectors would also participate in developing addendums to the plan so issues of contention could be resolved short of trial if possible.

Robbins said one issue that may not be resolved short of a judicial ruling is whether past depletions to senior water rights will have to be replaced by sub-district participants. The sub-district board would argue the sub-district should replace current depletions, not depletions from years past, Robbins said.

Kuenhold suggested that Schreüder run calculations based on both scenarios.