CWCB San Miguel PHS Final - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Miguel basin an extensive period of time in which to identify their long -term water needs and file for water rights to meet those needs. The CWCB first discussed this proposed ISF in February of 2005. The Colorado Division of Wildlife ( "CDOW ") and the Bureau of Land Management ( "BLM ") formally recommended the San Miguel River to the Board in February of 2008. Since public notice of the proposed ISF in March of 2008, staff has been working on this proposal and meeting often with stakeholders throughout the region. For example, Board staff met with the San Miguel County Commissioners at a public meeting in December of 2009, during which the Commissioners requested a one -year delay in the appropriation to allow water rights applications for any present or anticipated future needs to be filed before the instream now water right. Many objectors, such as the Board of County Commissioners of Montrose County, the Norwood Water Commission and the Lone Cone Ditch and Reservoir Company, took advantage of the lengthy delay and filed for significant water rights. Thus, this proposed instream flow water right will not deprive the people of the State of Colorado of its ability to develop compact entitlements because extensive water rights were filed to meet long -term needs and to develop compact entitlements. Additionally, through its extensive public notice and outreach activities and the above - described delay in declaring its intent to appropriate this ISF, the CWCB has correlated the activities of mankind with some reasonable preservation of the natural environment. 5) The instream flow right will not materially injure water rights. The proposed instream flow water right will not materially injure any existing water rights. The proposed instream flow water right cannot call out senior water rights within or upstream of the ISF reach, and because the instream flow right will not consume any water, it will not injure downstream senior water rights. Additionally, under section 37- 92- 102(3)(b), the instream flow water right will not impact water uses and practices existing on the date of this ISF appropriation, even if those uses and practices are not decreed. 6) The amount recommended for the instream flow right is the minimum amount of water necessary for the preservation of the natural environment. The CWCB has heard evidence to support its intent to appropriate the minimum amount of water necessary to preserve the natural environment in this case. The determination of the minimum amount of water necessary to preserve the natural environment is properly based on the scientific expertise of Staff, Wildlife, and the BLM, and will be further supported by the evidence at the hearing in this matter. The Colorado Supreme Court has declined to quantify "minimum stream flows" because such quantification is within the discretion and expertise of the CWCB, in consultation with CDOW. See Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v. Colo. Water Conservation Board, 594 P.2d 570, 576 (1979) ( "CRWCD v. CWCB "). "Factual determinations regarding such questions as which areas are most amenable to preservation and what life forms are presently flourishing or capable of flourishing should be delegated to an administrative agency which may avail itself of expert scientific opinion. Id., at 576. The Court recognized that environmental conditions will vary at each location and that the CWCB has the required expertise, as well as access to expert opinion, to determine the habitat to be preserved and the amount of water needed on a case by case basis. The Court deferred to the CWCB's