WSP10405 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

or,'7,,~ I Z -/7 . I / ""/ 4 or: State water board to determine snowmaking-streamflow status By BRlGHlD KEL1. Y Tinw. D<>ily Sla/TW/il" Snowmasa officials may not have as much discretion as they'd like over how much water the Aspen Skiing Co draws from SnowmDBs Creek for snowmaking. That's because the minimum streamflow rights Oil Snowmass Creek belong to the state, and any request to dip below that minimum muat be approved by the Colorado Water Conservation Board. ""The board doesn't allow infringement on their rights without due consideration: said Dan Mer. riman, chief water rights investigator for the CWCB. "It'8 not the town of Snowmass, it's not the DOW's or anyone elss's authority to eay we agree with this mitigation plan or not." Currently, the water board has set a 12 cubic- feet-peT-second minimum streamnow on Snow- mass Creek. The Aspen Skiing Co wanta to use water from the creek for snowmaking and hopes to gain CWeB approval to lower the minimum to 8cfa. During dry years, snowmaking could drop the creek even lower than 8 C(8, 80 the Skico is work- ing with state wildlife and water board experts on a mitigation plan to protec::t the creek's fitlh and riparian habitat. That plan will be presented to the Snowman Town Council, which haa given initial approval to snowmaking. Pitkin County wanta to ensure protection of the minimum streamflow, as required by county code, and talked about suing Snowmass ave. the council's approval. The commissioners, however, failed to gain a majority vote on filing the lawsuit before last week's legal deadline. At a joint meeting with the commissioners, town council members repeatedly expressed a c::oneem that they didn't want to give away any of their disc::retion in agreeing to a resolution that called for abiding by Division of Wildlife recom- mendations for protec::ting the minimum strearr.- now. The council verbally, however, vowed to pro-- tec::t the creek's habitaL Only the state water board, Merriman said, has the authority to set minimum streamflow. and approve dropping below the minimum. "They {the board members) will want to ensure habitat protection to a reasonable degree,- Merri- man said. A proposal to drop below minimum 8tream- flows would go before the board at a public hear- ing where Pitkin County, other water users, environmentalists and others could comment, he aaid. Water board staff also would review the prop- osal and make a recommendation to the board. The town o(Snowmau and Skico could develop a mitigation plan with assistance from state wild- life experts, which could be considered by the water board In approving diversions below the established minimum flows, Merriman said. If the board doesn't approve dropping below the minimum streamflow for snowmsking and someone goea ahead anyway, the CWCB could place a -caU- on ita water rights, asking the state water engineer to administer the state's rights snd curtail the diversion, Merriman explained. "We would aak for our water right to be admi- nistered in priority: he said. The key is priority. Snowmaas has senior water rights for munici- pal purposes. The question is whether anowmak- ing fall. under municipal USCil. Merrimsn uid snowmaking has been recog- nized as an industrial use elsewhere in Colorado, not municipal, and the water board could consid- er the Snowmass snowmaking diversion a new and un decreed use superseded by minimum streamflow righta. '1'he board would have to make the decision is the water right senior to us and is It a decreed use. If 00, we could place 8 call and curtail the diversion.- he said. Merriman added that the CWCB tries to keep an open mind on water diversion requests for dropping below minimum streamflows because mitigation plans can improve creeks. For example, Vail reached an agreement with the water board to draw water from Gore Creek for anowmaking that called for enlarging Black Lake. The lake helps increase flows in Gore Creek during critical low flow times and thereby improve the fishery, Merriman said.