Administrative Record 12-22

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

l~Zeetings on Proposed ISF Rules Revisions and Polic~-19
Staff has scheduled a public meeting on the ISF Rules re~~isions and Policy 19 for September 23,
2008 at 6:30 p.m. at the Steamboat Springs Communit`- Center. 1605 Lincoln Street, Steamboat
Springs, Colorado.
Follo"-up on Questions Raised at July- Board ~eetin~
1. Rule 8e. - De lbiinimis Rule
At the July C~'~%CB meeting, Board members asked the following questions:
A. V~"hat ~;~as the C`~'CB's intent «-hen it originally- adopted the De ~linimis Rule?
B. Hoy- has the Di~-ision of ~'~'ater Resources administered calls for ISF «-ater rights in
relation to ~;-ater rights decrees that C~'~'CB did not oppose under the De 1~linimis
Rule?
A. Intent of De ~Tinimis Rule
Staff is in the process of researching archi~~ ed files on ISF subcommittee meetings and the first
ISF rulemaking in the early 1990s. Staff "-i11 gi~~e a presentation on the results of that research to
date at the CVO' CB meeting.
B. Administration of ISF Calls in Relation to "De 1~Zinimis Water Rights"
To ans«-er this question. staff compiled a list of ISF calls placed in the last fi~~e years on streams
that are included in the de minimis database (the database lists ~;-ater rights that ha~-e been
decreed on those streams that ~~:-ere not opposed by the C~'~'CB under the De ~~inimis Rule). For
each call, staff contacted the D~?~'R Di~-ision office and inquired as to ho«~ the calls ~;ere
administered in relation to cases listed in the de minimis database, or if the DVVR could not recall
exactly ho«- those calls «-ere administered, ho~~- the D~~%R «°ould administer such a call today.
Staff contacted V~'ater Di~-isions 4, 5, and 7 about a total of 15 ISF calls.
1. «'ater Division 4
O~-er the past fig=e years, the CV~'CB has placed calls for its ISF ~~-ater rights on the East Ri~-er
(2004). Slate Ri~~er (2004 and 2007); and Dallas Creek (2006). The DV~'R Di~~ision 4 staff
responded that it has administered past ISF calls either by curtailment or by releasing
replacement "-ater according to appro~-ed augmentation plans. Di~-ision 4 further stated that if an
ISF call «-as placed today. D~'~'R staff «-ould administer it in priority, and that the only
circumstance in ~-hich D~~'R «-ould alloy subordination of a C`~~ CB ISF to a junior decree is if a
junior decree contains language that specifically authorizes or requires such a subordination.
None of the decrees listed in the de minimis database for the abo~-e-listed streams contain
language to that effect.
2. ~'~"ater Division 5
O~~er the past fire years, the C~'~'CB has placed calls for its ISF rater rights on the Eagle Ri~-er
(2004 and 2005), Crystal Ri~-er (2004 and 2005). Roaring Fork Ri~-er (2005 and 2007). Colorado
Ri~-er (2006 and 2007) and the `Williams Fork Ri~-er (2007). As of the date of this memo. staff
had not recei~-ed a response from `'eater Di~~ision 5. If possible. staff «-i11 report to the Board on
Di~~ision 5's response at the C`'~'CB meeting.
3. 'L'ater Division 7
In 2006. the C~'L'CB placed a call for its ISF «-ater right on the Dolores Ri~-er belo~~~ 'McPhee
Reser~-oir. The D~~'R did not curtail the one ~;-ater right listed in the C~'~'CB's de minimis