Attorney General's Report - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 3 The water supply for the Cragmont Subdivision was also the subject of an application by Colorado Mountain Properties and Buffalo Park Devc;lopment Company in 94CW290. In that application applicant proposed using wells to appropriate ground water, and the portion of the decree pertaining to the Cragmont Subdivision was rejected by the water court because the water court found that applicant failed to establish that there; is unappropriated ground water available for the wells proposed to serve the subdivision. That case is currently pending before the Supreme Court. 8. Application For Water Ri is Of Upper South Platte Water Conservancy District, Division 1; 2002CW389 - No changes. On April 18 we settled the case involving the application of the Upper S. Platte Water Conservancy District, 02 CW 389, in Division 1. We liad entered the case on behalf of the CWCB and the State and Division Engineers. The case involved a complicated plan for augmentation, including exchange, using augmentation water from Spinney Mountain and other reservoirs, as well as consumptive use ditch water. The case was scheduled fora 3 day trial, starting Apri128, and, because the case had not settled earlier, we were filing final documents for trial, at the same time that we were actively negotiating a settlement. 9. Application Of The CWCB For ISF In Eider Creek, Division 4; 2002CW267 - No changes. This was an application for an ISF of between 0.85 cfs and 5.25 cfs, depending on time of year, on Eider Creek near Telluride. The CWCB entered into a stipulation with the one opposer in the case and submitted a proposed decree to the court in early May. 10. Application For Water Rights Of Kittler Living Trust, Division 4; 2006CW238 - No changes. Through this application, Kittler Living Trust applied for several conditional direct flow and storage water rights. The Applicant also sought approval of a plan for augmentation. As originally proposed, the plan for augmentation could have injured the CWCB's instream flow rights on the South Fork of the San Miguel River and/or the mainstream of the San Miguel River. As such, a statement of opposition was filed on the CWCB's behalf. There were no other opposers in this case. The Applicant and the CWCB have agreed to the entry of a decree that will prevent injury to the aforementioned instream flow rights and that decree has been approved by the Water Court. In pertinent part, the decree contains terms and conditions providing for curtailment of all out-of-priority diversions not fully replaced in time, place and amount, installation of measurement devices and headgates on all structures, and a retained jurisdiction period that is adequate to assess the potential for injury arising from the operation of applicant's plan for augmentation. •