19 (4) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

database on this reach of the Dolores River because the decree is for a downstream move of the point of diversion that does not injure the ISF water right. The Division 7 DWR staff confirmed that if the CWCB does not object to a water court application under the De Minimis Rule, the DWR will continue to administer the ISF water right in priority. If a water court decree allows for an injury to an ISF water right by allowing a reduction in the flow below the full decreed ISF amount, the DWR will administer the water rights accordingly. 2. Rule 8i.(3) -Injury Accepted with Mitigation At the July CWCB meeting, the question arose of whether decrees that incorporate injury with mitigation should provide for perpetual retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms and conditions specific to the injury with mitigation pretrial resolution. Rather than requesting perpetual retained jurisdiction, staff suggests revising Rule 8i.(3)(1)(v) to provide for a fifteen (15) year retained jurisdiction period. To address concerns raised by interested parties about Rule 8i.(3)(1)(iv), set forth below, staff recommends adding Rule 8i.(3)(m), also set forth below, to allow a water user to provide input to the Board on whether he or she has ceased to provide the agreed-upon mitigation. iv. A term providing that if the proponent ceases to provide the agreed upon mitigation (such as removing structural components or failing to maintain them to a specified level, or ceasing to implement non-structural components), that the proponent will not divert water or take any other action that would reduce flows in the affected stream below the decreed ISF amount because the Board will no longer accept the injury based upon the mitigation no longer being in effect (in such case, if the Board places a call for the affected ISF water right, the Board will notify the Division Engineer that this provision of the decree now is in effect and that the Board is not accepting the injury); m. If staff determines that the proponent has ceased to provide the agreed-upon mitigation, staff shall request the CWCB to make a factual determination on the issue based upon information presented to the CWCB by staff, the proponent, and any interested parties. If the CWCB finds that the proponent has ceased to provide the agreed-upon mitigation, it shall direct staff to place a call for the full ISF water right at times that such right is not fully satisfied. 3. Rule 6 - Acquisition of Water, Water Rights or Interests in Water for Instream Flow Purposes At the July CWCB meeting, the question arose of whether water court approval is required for subsequent use of the decreed historical consumptive use amount of an acquired water right downstream of the ISF reach. The Attorney General's Office and the State Engineer's Office agree that any downstream use of a changed water right must be identified in a water court change application, or it will be deemed speculative. However, the CWCB may not have sufficient information at the time it changes an acquired water right to ISF use to also obtain water court approval of a beneficial use of the historical consumptive use downstream of the ISF reach. To address this situation, staff recommends amending ISF Rule 6i.(2) to read: 6i. In the change of water right proceeding, the Board shall request the Water Court to: 1) quantify the historical consumptive use and return flows of the acquired water right; 2) include a term and condition providing that the Board or the seller, lessor, lender, or donor of the water may bring about the beneficial use of the historical consumptive use of the changed water right downstream of the ISF reach as fully consumable reusable water, subj ect to such terms and conditions as the water court deems