Consent_1a

• Board Meeting Date: 9/16/2008
• Description: ISF Section – Consent Agenda – Case No. 4-05CW264, Applicaton of Ranch Properties, LLC
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

Consent Agenda Item l .a
Case No. 4-OSCW264: Application of Ranch Properties, LLC
Application Summary
This is an application for water storage rights and for approval of a plan for augmentation in
Gunnison County, approximately 12 miles north of Gunnison on Ohio Creek.
1. The Applicant seeks water storage rights for two storage ponds and eleven oxbow ponds
excavated in old channel meanders.
2. The proposed sources of augmentation water include Acme Ditch on Castle Creek
upstream of Applicant's project, and Blue Mesa Reservoir downstream of Applicant's
project.
3. In order to use Acme Ditch, which is decreed for irrigation only, Applicant must change
that water right and dry-up historically irrigated lands. Applicant proposes to maintain
historic return flows (in an unknown amount) of the dry-up lands with releases from Blue
Mesa Reservoir, which only can be done by exchange.
4. The total annual expected evaporation is 13.12 acre-feet per year. Applicant proposes to
use Acme Ditch water to replace irrigation season out-of priority evaporation and Blue
Mesa Reservoir to replace non-irrigation season evaporation.
The Applicant's proposed use of the two storage ponds is fish culture and recreation with an
appropriation date of December 1, 2004. The Applicant has not identified the proposed use of
the eleven oxbow ponds nor provided an appropriation date.
CWCB Appropriation
Applicant filed a proposed ruling with the Court on April 16, 2008. The CWCB holds the following
instream flow water right that could be injured by the application and proposed ruling:
CWCB StreamlLake Amount Approp. watershed Coun
~
Case No. cfs Date
4-80CVV112A Ohio Creek 10 3/17/80 Upper Gunnison Gunnison
4-80CW112B Ohio Creek 12 3/17/80 Upper Gunnison Gunnison
Potential for Injury
CWCB did not file a Statement of Opposition to the original application in this case because it
appeared that the depletions would fall within ISF Rule 8e (de minimis Rule) regarding filing
statements of opposition. However, now that the Applicant has submitted a proposed ruling, it
has become evident that the Applicant intends to injure the C~UCB's water rights and has asked
the court to confirm its plan to injure CWCB's water right. Staff and the Attorney General's
Office have conferred with both counsel and engineer for the Applicant. Those conferences have
resulted in CWCB Staff filing a Motion to Intervene, which has been granted by the court.
In summary, Applicant's proposed plan for augmentation will injure the Board's instream flow
water rights on Ohio Creek by not replacing depletions in time, place and amount, and by not
maintaining historical return flows in time, place and amount.
Other Ob.iectors
There are no other objectors in this case. However, on May 6, 2008, the Division Four Division
Engineer recommended that the court deny the proposed ruling because among other reasons, it
does not prevent injury to the CWCB's instream flow water rights on Ohio Creek.