Rebuttal Report for City of Durango, Case No. 2006CW9

Home Browse Search

Harris Report, Paragraph 3.1.3 a) "a) The C30,000,4F carve -out,] amount is the minimum necessary for compact depletion suggested by the 1995 Report" (Harris Report, pg 15) This first assertion refers to a report prepared in 1995 by a CWCB workgroup entitled Colorado River Compact Water Development Projections (1995 Report). Mr. Harris admits that within the 1995 Report "The allowance range for the Animas River basin within the San Juan River Basin was not determined,.." (pg. 14, Harris Report). Mr. Harris calculates that water flowing in Animas River at the Boating Park constitutes 36% of the water available for appropriation in the San Juan Basin, and then concludes that the area upstream of the Boating Park will also constitute 36% of the total future water development in the San Juan Basin. This calculation assumes that a sub - basin's water availability at a given point on the river is directly proportionate to that sub - basin's development potential upstream of that point on the river - an invalid assumption. Evaluating development potential requires the projection of future possible land uses and at minimum involves the consideration of Public or tribal lands not available for development in the basin Limitations on density from local government land use regulations Physical constraints on development of private lands such as inaccessibility and steepness These factors and others directly influencing future land use (and therefore future water consumption) could result in many scenarios in which water available for appropriation is not proportionate to development potential. For example, Archuleta County, also mostly located in the San Juan Basin, currently has no land use regulations that specifically limit future land use densities while La Plata County and San Juan County both have adopted substantial regulations affecting future density. The fact that the land use plans currently regulating density in La Plata County and San Juan County were not adopted in 1995 means that the 1995 Report methodology could not have adequately addressed the density limitations currently in place that significantly influence development potential, ultimately influencing demand for future water rights. Table 1 - Year Density Regulations Were Adopted in Upstream Planning Areas Upstream Area Year Density Regulations Adopted La Plata North County 1996 La Plata Junction Creek 1997 La Plata West Durango 1997 La Plata Animas Valley Amended 3 times since 1995 San Juan County Density Related Revisions 2004 Source: http:// co .laplata.co.us/planiplansum.htm Summary: The 1995 Report is a large scale, generalized report and is not the most appropriate information resource for evaluating future water demands upstream of Durango's RICD reach. Even if it were the best resource, the assumptions used in calculations in the Expert Report for Opposers to support a 30,000 AF carve -out based on the 1995 Report are based on invalid assumptions.