13all

• Board Meeting Date: 7/22/2008
• Description: ISF Section - Lower San Miguel Water Resources Planning Study
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

Lower San Miguel yVa~er Resource Planning Study
Page 11
VI.C Norwood
At this time, it is not clear as to Norwood's current and future water demands, or supply
needs. Jenny Russell, Norwood's attorney, has indicated that Norwood could quite probably
need an additional future water supply. Norwood is not part of the original MOU, but is located
within the basin. Various issues have been discussed as to whether or not the Uravan Water
Rights would be an appropriate water supply source for Norwood. The Colorado Division of
Water Resources, Division 4 Engineer has indicated that changing the location of use of the
Uravan Water Rights that far upstream, may present particular problems, especially for
Norwood. First of all, there are many water right holders including the CWCB's instream flow
on the San Miguel River between Norwood and the current decreed places of use of the Uravan
Water Rights. Secondly, Norwood is supplied by the Gurley Ditch, which receives its water
from a tributary to the San Miguel, not the San Miguel itself. These issues are not
insurmountable, but make Norwood's use of these rights improbable.
VI.D Upper Basin
Neither Mountain Village nor San Miguel County staff has indicated that either of those
entities currently require additional water supply to meet current or future demand; therefore, it
is also not clear as to the Upper Basin's current and future water demands, or supply needs. It
was suggested that the Uravan Water Rights be used as augmentation credits for upper basin
water users. Various issues have been discussed as to whether or not the Uravan Water Rights
would be an appropriate water supply source for the Upper Basin. The Colorado Division of
Water Resources, Division 4 Engineer has indicated that changing the location of use of the
Uravan Water Rights that far upstream, may present significant problems, primarily, as there are
water right holders between the current decreed locations of the Uravan Water Rights and the
upstream points of potential use. This issue is not insurmountable, but makes the Upper Basin's
use of these rights improbable.
VI.E Recreation
Representatives of the San Miguel Watershed Coalition and local area boaters have
indicated that portions of the San Miguel River, below the Highline Canal headgate, are
impassable each summer. They feel that if these portions retained water throughout the boating
season, longer boat trips would be possible and these longer trips could bring boater traffic
through Naturita and possibly bring a financial benefit to the town, as well. Any scenario which
would leave water in the stream for longer reaches was favorable to the boating interest.
Also, the new instream flow recommendations by the DOW and BLM for the lower San Miguel
River below Calamity Draw may prove significant to protecting the fishery and the associated
recreational resource, (see Appendix Four).
VI.F Local Water Users
The Colorado Cooperative Company (Company) operates the Highline Canal, which, as
explained in the Armbruster Report, carries water to many individual irrigators and water users,
as well as the Mustang Water Authority. The Company generally believes that the Highline
Canal water users, as well as the Mustang Water Authority, have enough water for current and
future needs, unless the administration of the basin was changed drastically.
~Iuly 2008