BOARD00051 ‎(2)‎

• Board Meeting Date: 11/13/2006
• Description: ISF Section - Consent Agenda - Case No. 7-06CW045, Application of Annala Living Trust
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

;:0,,-:- .

.

STATE OF COLORADO

WATER DIVISION 7
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
Office of the Slale Engineer
Department of Natural Resources

701 Camino Del Rio. Suite 205
Durango, CO 81301

Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]

hllp:llwater.slate.co.usl

Bill Owe"s
Governor

RlI5sell George
Executive Director

Hal D. Simp.on, I'.E.
Slate EnGineer

Bruce T. WI,iIChc.d,I'.E.
Division Engineer

October 24, 2006

Honorable Judge Gregory G. Lyman
Water Court, Division 7
1060 E 2nd A venue
Room 106
Durango, CO 81301

Re: Recommendation of the Division Engineer
06CW45 Annala Living Trust
Banks-Tyner Ditch Change of Water Right

.

Dear Judge Lyman:

--

The application in this case is for a change in point of diversion for water rights on the
Florida River in La Plata County, that were originally decreed to the Harris-Paterson
Ditch and moved downstream to the Banks-Tyner Ditch in Case No. 95CW31. In that
case, 0.66 cfs was transferred downstream and limited to the irrigation of 12.6 acres with
a total consumptive use not to exceed of22.7 aflyr (i.e. 1.80 af/yr per irrigated acre), and
diversions limited to April 151h to October 3151. In Case 06CW45, the applicant is
requesting to move 0.25 cfs of the 0.66 cfs upstream to the McCluer and Murray Ditch.
It is unclear in the application if the applicant intends to irrigate a portion ofthe same
lands that were the subject of the previous change case. The proposed change would be
approximately 2.25 stream miles upstream. There is an in-stream flow water right held
by the Colorado Water Conservation Board in this section of the river that could
potentially be impacted if the change were granted without conditions to protect the in-
stream flow right. The CWCB has filed a Statement of Opposition in the case. The
Highlille Ditch is the only other diversion from the river in this reach, and it is believed
that the applicant may be the owner of the water right associated with that ditch. The
applicant references the irrigation of 1.5 acres under the historic use section of the
application, but it is not clear how this value was obtained. There was no historic use
infonnation, or consumptive use evaluation that was submitted with the application. If
the change of water right is granted, we would recommend that the right be limited
proportionally to the conditions and limitations of the change case in 95CW31. The
acreage and arulUal diversion should be reduced accordingly for the portion of the water
right that remains in the Banks-Tyner Ditch.