Laserfiche WebLink
BSA <br />N~EMORANDI,~M <br />~ water consultants <br />• <br />B ISHOP-B ROGD~'N ASSOCIATES, INC. <br />To: Linda Bassi <br />CC: Stan Cozier, Middle Park Water Conservancy District Board of Directors <br />From: Mike Sayler <br />Subject: Proposed Revisions to ISF Rule 8e, De Minimis Rule <br />Job: 8036.00 <br />- - <br />Date: May 20, 2008 ; ~- - ~ = ~_- ~ ~ ~ -~ <br />This memorandum is in reply to the May 12, 2008 memorandum from Linda Bassi to the Colorado Water <br />Conservation Board Members regarding proposed revisions to ISF Rules Workshop. As the Water Resources <br />Engineer for the Middle Park Water Conservancy District (Middle Park}, I wish to inform you of the concerns <br />Middle Park has with the proposed revisions to Rule 8e, the existing De Minimis Rule. <br />As you may know, Middle Park controls 3,000 acre-feet (ac-ft) of Windy Gap Project water in Lake Granby and <br />another 3,000 ac-ft of water in Wolford Mountain Reservoir. 1'he Middle Park water is used by various conhactees <br />in Grand and Summit Counties as a source of augmentation water. Many of the Middle Park contiactees are small <br />water users (less than 10 aC-ftlyr) who obtained decrees for plans for augmentation using Middle Park water as a <br />sole source of augmentation water. In fact, there are currently more than 80 of these types of small Miele Park <br />contracts, most of which have final decrees. Many of these final decrees obtained a de minimis finding as part of the <br />decree. These decrees are for small water users, including a number of small, County-approved subdivisions that <br />develop a ground water supply through wells and augment wide Middle Park water. These places for augmentation <br />were decreed based upon being de minimis and at the time of the decree it was assumed (if not found as part of the <br />ruling) that the water rights would not be subject to a downstream call firom the CWCB. <br />We now understand that under the proposed clarified Rule 8e, the CWCB would notify water court applicants that <br />even if a dew will result in a de minimis impact, the CWCB may place a call for its ISF water rights that will be <br />administered against all junior water rights and plans for augme~ation, whether de minimis ~ not. On behalf of <br />Middle Park, I wish to point out tie following impacts fiat will occur if the CWCB starts to place calls against de <br />minimis water rights. <br />L For many of the 80 or so Middle Park plans already decreed, a CWCB call will shut down the <br />well pumping of existing users or subdivisions. These are resides of Grand or Summit County <br />that have built their homes based upon a ~SUmption that de minimis standing meant there <br />would not be a call from the CWCB. These are entities that would need to go back to water court <br />and revise their decrees az best, or simply be stuck with an unworkable plan at worst. In many <br />instances, the only way to augment these existing plans above certain calling CWCB ISF reaches <br />would be to co~ustruct on-site storage, acquire more Middle Park water (if possible) and exchange <br />the water into storage on the property when the CWCB flows were satisfied, only to release the <br />water later on to the CWCB call. Such plans would not only fiuther exhaust already limited <br />Middle Park supplies, but would ultimately deplete more flow annually from the CWCB reaches <br />because of the evaporative losses from tie on-site storage. Many of the plans would not have <br />suitable on-site storage available and would simply not work due to the potential of a CWCB <br />call. <br />2. A CWCB call will essentially eliminate the potential for most future small users and subdivisions <br />to develop water plans in Grand or Summit County. As discussed above, the only way most <br />users would be able to develop such a plan would be by constructing ponds to store water at <br />times the CWCB is satisfied and release later when the CWCB call is placed. Such storage <br />requires more water due to evaporation, thereby depleting more of the annual streamllow above <br />the CWCB water right and more quickly exhausting an already limited Middle Park supply. <br />As I'm sure you are aware, placing a CWCB call essentially eliminates any benefits gained from a de minimis <br />finding. In fact, if the CWCB were to call out de minimis water rights, it brings to question the ewe p~upose of <br />maintaining any de minimis policy in tie future. It is Middle Park's concern that such a change in the policy will <br />