BOARD00185 ‎(2)‎

• Board Meeting Date: 5/23/2007
• Description: Intrastate Water Management and Development Section - Water Supply Reserve Account Applications for Grants
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

.'
f

4-03CWI08, which the CWCB filed a statement of opposition to protect its NLL water right on Lake San .'
Cristobal.

Discussion:

As identified in the major findings in SWSI, supplies are not necessarily where demands are located. If
implemented, the location of this storage has the potential tb address many important needs in the Lake Fork
Gunnison basin. Lake San Cristobal is located relativel~ high in the basin, an important attribute when
considering an augmentation source. Development in the Rake City area has placed significant pressures on
the water supplies in the Lake Fork Gunnison River basi~ which is likely to continue in the foreseeable
future. An upstream augmentation source such as San I Cristobel Lake would augment out of priority
depletions within the Lake Fork basin rather that utilizing downstream sources such as Blue Mesa Reservoir.
Among other considerations, the CWCB holds instream fl~w water rights on the Lake Fork Gunnison River
and many of its tributaries which could benefit both directly and indirectly from this project. Some
discussions with CWCB Staff have included allocating a portion of the releases to support instream flow
water rights in the Lake Fork Gunnison River. I

Issues/Additional Needs: I

. The applicant needs to address the threshold criteria, especially in regard to potential effects to the
CWCB Natural Lake Level (NLL) water right. I
I
. Pending resolution/receipt of analysis of the above Ithe applicant should resolve the issues raised in
case number 03CW108, including whether a non-natural lake level pool exists above the natural lake ..
level. The outcome and logistics of this analysis coJld substantially change the purpose and outcome
of this grant. I

. A copy of the 2003 feasibility study referred to in I the grant application was not provided. Please
submit this information. I

. The applicants describe this application as a 'technibal analysis' although the application appears to
have a structural component associated with outlet structure, please clarify.

. More specific budget breakdown is needed as well a1s more detail regarding the schedule of activities
and key activities are needed. I

. In this application, it was stated that the Hinsdale Cdunty Road and Bridge Department constructed a
rock and timber dam at the outlet in the 1950s, yet the water right application in 4-03CW108 states
the improvements occurred on June I, 1990. Further/clarification on this issue is needed.

. It was stated that this feasibility study/analysis will be used in part to support the water rights
I
application in 4-03CWI08. It is important to note that funds can not be used to reimburse past costs
or for legal expenses related to the water right applidtion in 4-03CW108.
I
. The current scope of work does not appear to include any effort to assess the outlet structure design
and costs. Without this information it is unclear hdw Mr. Slattery can conduct a marketable yield
i
analysis (i.e. without knowing the capital cost, the rate of repayment and marketability, the price of
augmentation water can not be determined.) Please darify.

. The applicant did not identify any TABOR issues; pl~ase confirm that this is not an issue.

. Please clarify why this report is provided to the Guhnison Roundtable rather than Hinsdale County .
and the Upper Gunnison Water Conservancy District. In addition, one tax payer identification ". - .
number was provided but it appears that this is a co-dpplication however the upper Gunnison appears
2 I
I