- About WIP
- Participating Entities
- Animas-La Plata Water Conservancy District
- City of Durango Water Commission
- Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority
- Dolores Conservation District
- Dolores Water Conservancy District
- Empire Electric Association
- Florida Water Conservancy District
- La Plata Archuleta Water District
- La Plata Electric Association
- La Plata Water Conservancy District
- Mancos Conservation District
- Mancos Water Conservancy District
- Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD)
- Pine River Irrigation District
- San Juan Water Conservancy District
- Southwestern Water Conservation District
- U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
- Regional Water Projects
- Animas River Stakeholders
- Animas-La Plata Project
- Cloud Seeding Program
- Dolores Project (McPhee Reservoir)
- Dry Gulch Reservoir (Pending)
- Florida Project (Lemon Reservoir)
- Jackson Gulch Reservoir
- Long Hollow Reservoir
- Pine River Project (Vallecito Reservoir)
- Rio Blanco Restoration Project
- River Protection Work Group
- UMETCO (Urivan) Water Rights
- Water Information
- Contact WIP
June 13, 2013--Supreme Court sides with Oklahoma over Texas in Red River water dispute (Washington Post)
On June 13th the Supreme Court decisively sided with Oklahoma and rejected Texas’ claim that it has a right under a 30-year-old agreement to cross their common border for water to serve the fast-growing Fort Worth area.
The U.S. Bureau of Land Management, along with landowners and environmental groups, have appealed an Arizona Department of Water Resources decision to approve a Los Angeles real estate company’s request to pump roughly 3,000 acre feet of water a year from state land near the San Pedro River--the last big, free flowing river in the southwest. The real estate company plans to use the water for development, but opponents argue the company would be intercepting water that would have otherwise flowed to replenish the river and the surrounding San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area, which contains nearly 57,000 acres of federal land.
April 17, 2012--Drought sparks dispute between Texas, Mexico over release of Rio Grande water to farmers (Washington Post)
Texas officials have made clear with a strong rebuke of the decision to release the spring’s first Rio Grande waters to Mexican farmers that every drop will be monitored as both sides of the border suffer through a historic drought. Mexico wanted a traditional early release from reservoirs so spring planting in the Juarez Valley wouldn’t be delayed.
The U.S. Supreme Court sided with Wyoming farmers Monday in a water lawsuit that claimed they were taking too much water from a river system shared with neighboring Montana. The high court struck down one of four claims made by Montana in a 2007 complaint that said Wyoming was violating a 1950 agreement by depleting water from the Tongue and Powder rivers.
April 8, 2011--Nebraska irrigators object to Kan. call to cut irrigation to 500K acres as water fight resumes (Washington Post)
A U.S. Supreme Court decision that breathed new life into a decades-long water-rights dispute on the Great Plains has renewed concerns among southern Nebraska farmers about what could happen to their livelihoods. The dispute centers on the Republican River, from which Kansas contends Nebraska took more than its share of water in 2005 and 2006.
A water-rights battle that began in June between two major providers in Montezuma County might be heading toward calmer waters. Montezuma Valley Irrigation Co. filed a lawsuit June 5 in U.S. District Court against the Dolores Water Conservancy District and the U.S.
Landowners along the fertile stretch of land between San Francisco and the state capital are joined in a revolt against the canal that has evolved into something of a modern-day sagebrush rebellion. "All the pumps and systems to get water out of the river and put in a canal will have to be done in our area.
Colorado has finally won a battle in the running war with Kansas over the waters of the Arkansas River — and it only took 22 years. In the final ruling in the long-running case, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Kansas' argument that its consultants should be paid $9.2 million by Colorado.