Administrative Record 1-11

• Year: 2009
• Instream Flow Rules - Doc Type: Rulemaking Hearings

«Tater consultants
BISHOP-B ROGDFti~ ASSOCIATES. I~'~'C.
Ju1~- ?. 2008
Linda Bassi
Colorado ~?~"ater Conser~-ation Board
721 St. Centennial Bldg.
1 ~ 13 Sherman St.
Den~-er, CO 80203
~ ~Y ~~~
_ ._ _~ . 200

tiiichael ~. Saeler
Christopher J. Sanchez
Jeffrey- ~. Clark
Charles E. Stan~Tione
Robert E. Brogden
Re: 'diddle Park ~'~~ ater Conservanc~° District's Comments on Proposed Changes to ISF Rule 8.e_
- De Minimus Rule
Dear Linda.
This letter is to folio«~ up on the memorandum I sent you on Ma~~ 23, 2008 regarding the
proposed re~-ision to Instream Flow (ISF) Rule 8.e., the De Minimus Rule. I am not able to attend
any of the public meetings currently being held on this matter, but I «,~ould like to reiterate the
concerns that the ~~iiddle Park «'ater Conservancy District (Middle Park) has Evith the concept of
the C~'~'CB calling out small plans for augmentation «~hen it's instream flo«° water rights are not
satisfied. even «~hen these plans for augmentation were granted De Minimus status in the decree
for the plan for augmentation.
In m~- pre~-ious memorandum (a copy- of «-hich is attached), I noted that there are o~°er 80 Middle
Park contracts for small «-ater users in Grand and Summit County°, most of w•hieh are used for
small plans for augmentation. Many of these Middle Park contractees obtained De Minimus
findings in their decrees. These are small water users, typically utilizing «=ells as a source of
physical «-ater supply, that use Middle Park water in Granby or Wolford Mountain Reservoirs for
augmentation. These users have augmentation supplies that were, for the most part developed
upon the assumption that if the depletions «-ere found to be De Minimus, the water supply «~ould
not be called out. Furthermore. based upon this assumption, additional features «-ere not included
in the plans for augmentation, that «~ould allow the users to augment in the event of a C`'~~CB call
(on-site storage for example).
I understand the issues surrounding the ability- of the C`~'CB to call ~~~ith it's instream floe- «•ater
rights (including selective subordination issues) are complex. However, as I stated in my
pre~-ious memorandum, a C~'~~CB call will shut do«~n the «~ater supply of many of the existing
Middle Park small users and prevent most other small augmentation plans in the future. I believe
that it is important for the C«~CB to consider the original intent of the De Minimus rule. If the
•-•- . ~ .. ; ~ • u