Photo by Ruth Heide After sharing concerns about the Valley’s first sub-district water management plan, Kelly Sowards, right, speaks amiably with from left Rio Grande Water Conservation District Attorney David Robbins, District Board member Floyd Chiles and District Engineer Allen Davey.

Clock starts for objection period for groundwater management plan



By RUTH HEIDE

ALAMOSA — The Rio Grande Water Conservation District Board on Wednesday unanimously approved the management plan for its first groundwater management sub-district.

The board reconvened a public hearing that had been continued from June and took comments from 16 Valley residents on Wednesday before issuing its decision in favor of the first sub-district management plan. The majority of the speakers supported the plan while the remainder still had some concerns about the plan and/or the sub-district concept in general.

Rio Grande Water Conservation District Board President Ray Wright said the board continued its June hearing until after the state engineer’s decision on the management plan. Acting State Engineer Ken Knox approved the plan with some modifications.

The first sub-district of the Rio Grande Water Conservation District is generally located in the closed basin area of the Valley north of the Rio Grande, Wright reminded the audience at the Wednesday hearing.

Rio Grande Water Conservation District Attorney David Robbins outlined what happens next. He said those appealing the state engineer’s decision have until November 26 to file their objections in the water court in Alamosa, and those disagreeing with the Rio Grande Water Conservation District board’s decision now have 10 days to file their objections in the district court in Alamosa. The same judge, District O. John Kuenhold, will hear both the water and district court objections.

Several of those who supported the sub-district plan during the Wednesday hearing told the water board the plan was not perfect but was better than the alternative of state regulations.

“I would rather keep the state out of it,” said Dick McNitt. “We do need to have a plan, and I hope this will work.”

Jimmy Hart said he supported the management plan. “It’s not maybe get everything that we are going to need but it is a start in the right direction to solving our own problems.”

“I don’t think it is totally the answer, but I think it is a vehicle that will get us where we need to go,” said Rick Stoeber. “We will probably have to make changes along the way.”

“None of us really like this,” Bob Felmlee said, “but we must look at the sub-district as the best idea to come forward at this time.”

Mike Prentice, a farmer for close to 50 years, said, “I think that the sub-district concept is the best shot that we have to react to the changes of water tables ... I think we desperately need the flexibility offered by our sub-district plans.”

A few of the speakers addressed concerns they still had with the plan and/or the sub-district process. Lawrence Gallegos, for example, said the revised plan was better than the original, but “I still feel it is lacking in a lot of detail.”

He said, “I think you need to do some more modifications to the plan for it to really address the problem on a long-term basis.”

Gallegos questioned the 40,000-acre goal to take out of production to bring the aquifers back into balance. He said if the Valley had another year like 2002, “you would need to cut quite a bit more than just the 40,000 acres.”

Curt Trimble said he believed the 40,000-acre goal might be more aggressive than needed. He suggested adjusting that number downward depending on the kind of water year the Valley had. “When it comes to reality, reality always trumps your models.”

Kelly Sowards asked, “What genius decided 40,000 acres ... was the magical number?”

Sowards said the sub-districts bypass the doctrine of prior appropriation in the state’s constitution. He said they are an admitted attempt to avoid groundwater regulation.

Sowards added the plan does not specify how injuries to senior river rights will be corrected.

Sowards suggested that if sprinklers were cut back to two cuttings a year for awhile, that might build up the aquifers much quicker than the sub-districts’ plans.

Samuel Selters shared concerns about the $75 per acre foot maximum fee in the management plan. He suggested the fee should either have no limitations or be set at a much higher amount for a maximum such as $500. “This fee should be high enough to have the individual farmer question whether or not it is economically feasible to pump out of the aquifer,” he said.

Robert Adkins also objected to the $75 per acre maximum fee and asked that the maximum be removed. He questioned why the fee should be held to a maximum rate when everything else like taxes and ditch fees go up.

Wright said when all the fees are factored in, a farmer irrigating with no surface water could be paying $155-172 an acre in sub-district fees. He said that kind of cost would provide an incentive to change pumping and growing practices. “I tend to think it deserves a shot to see what the implementation looks like,” he said.

Dee Greeman spoke on behalf of Roger and Marilyn Perry who still had some concerns about the variable fee and maintained that an independent contractor should monitor groundwater levels. They said this probably was not the best plan but many hours had been spent on it and it would help the Valley move forward “and take care of things on our own.”

Travis Smith told the water boards on Wednesday, “There’s other basins in the state that would love to be in this position, to have the options that we have here of self government and self control.”