PUB00023

• Year: 2000
• Title: InStream Colorado - July 2000
• CWCB Section: Stream & Lake Protection
• Author: CWCB
• Description: InStream Colorado - July 2000
• Publications - Doc Type: Newsletter

Monitoring is an important aspect of the ISF Program

Summer is
now upon
us and our
monitoring
efforts have
shitled from
winter baseflow
concerns La
concerns over
lower than normal flows which are
occurring in the Rio Gr ande, San Juan,
Dolores and San Mignel basins of
southwestern Colorado. We have
requested assistance from our sister
agencies in the Department of Natural
Resources, namely the Division ofWaLer
Resources and the Division ofw ildlife.
Since these two agencies ha ve a large
number of people in the field, they can
effectively act as our o/eyes and ears" and
provide us with information regarding
streamflow conditions that we might
not otherwise be aware of. This

information will be nseful in
determining those streams where
administration may be needed to
protect the instream flow water rights
and to help identifY str eam reaches
where new sLream monitoring would
enhance administr ation in the future.

Efforts are also underway to approprwte
new instream flow water rights to
protect Colorado's water dependent
natural environment. The Attorney
General's Office is in the process of
filing water right applications for a
number of streams in the Parachute
Creek basin. Staff, in cooper dtion with
the Attorney General's Office, is
working with aU parties and interested
persons concerning contested
appropriations in the Fourmile Creek
basin. A hearing on these streams
is scheduled betore the Board
in Septem ber.

In an effOrL Lo provide greaLer
streamflow protection through the
Board's Acquisition/Donation Program,
we have been exploring the possibility
of applying for a planning gr ant from
Great Outdoors Colorado. This would
take the form of a '"needs assessment"
and help the staff, Board and others
identifY areas with special needs for
instream flow protection.
I've been told my space is limited in
this edition of inS/leam Colorado so
with this I will close. Again, thank
you for your interest and continued
snpport of Colorado' Stream and Lake
Protection Program. *

- Dan Merriman, Director
Siream IlIId fAke Prolei:tilm Program

ISF history.

continued from page 1

The Supreme Court issued its decision on
June 19, 1995. Although the Supreme
Court did not find fault with the CW CB's
-::!:::::::.::;:.~~ -::::=: ::::::~~::::::t th~ ::::::-:::-:=::::-, it :::-cl'.::'d th~t
the CVVCB, unlike other water users,
could not reduce its decreed in::..1rearn flow
amount without petitioning to wa ter
..::omt. The Supreme Court also ruled that
the (VVCKlliIS;l "lJlli(llI~ ~tlltutOI}'
fiduciary duty" aJ)J Inu~t iIIlpleIIH:~Iltttle
terms oftheiSF decree.

Afte.r the Snowmass Creek opinion,
qnestions arose regarding the legal
standards to be used by the wa ter courl in
reviewingC\t\,-CB's (h':l+..ioTl to Ilppropri.1te
ISFs. S.B. 96-64 emerged as a compromise
that set legal standards for water conrt
review of the CweB's determinations in
appropriating ISF right, and e,taUlllihed a
process for the O^/CB to tallow for
rerlncing .1ny IS~ rights. It also r eaftirmed
the O^/CB', authority to me torISF
water rights for the recovery of
pndangpr~rl sppcif'~ on thr Colorado

and Y;.lmp;.llivt"rs.

The other major amendment to the ISF
statutes in the l~!:IO's concerned the
conditional water right,. In 1988, The
Nature Conservancy CTNe) approached
the CWC~ with a proposa 1 to rlonate the
fir,t 300 efu ("donated water right") of it,
800 ciS conditionally decreed Rabbit
Gulch Canal watfr right nn the main~pm
of the GUIlIlbo]) River. This decree
allowed diversion of water 24-hours a day
Ye.:lr-round for industrial, domestic,
recreatinn;ll, piscatorial awl wihllife
pnrposes. TNC had acqnired its interest
in the donated water right from Pittsbnrg
and Midw.1Y C0.11 Mining Company
(1'&1,1). The OVCB outained the donated
water right by deed da ted 'vlarch 13,
1992, anrl changerl the right for IS,' uses
in Case 92CWI07.

While the CWCB was in the process
ofc.h.1ngingthe rlonated conditional
water right to an au,olnte right for ISF
purposes, some water users began to fear
pot.f'ntirl) nrlvrI<;p. impnr.ts nn wntfr right;::;
and water UB'e1orment for using
conditional water rights for ISF uses.
As a result, the Genera I Assem hly passed

2

S.Il. 94-54. This bill limited the CW CIl's
auilityto acquire cOIlJitional water rights
to the Yampa River, solelyforthe recovery
of enrlangered fish. The bill, however,
allowed TNC donation to proceed ami the
CWCB obtained a decree for Case
920\'107 on May 31, 1995.

Following the CWeB's filing for new water
rightf; to pmtr.r.t r.noangr.red fish in the
Yampa River, and ;:Juutieq uent withur <twal
ofthose applications, the General
Assembly passed H.B.1438 dnring the
lr.gisbtive session of:.:!ooo, eliminating thp.
CWCB's authority to acqnirc conditional
water rights for in stream flows altogether.

Thlli conclnde, the final part ill the ISF
history series. I hope that these articles
have been infonnativf anousrflJ1. Ifvou
are intere')teu in sh;u.ing yourthougl~t'::i
about theISF Program or would likcw
contribute an article for future issues of
lnStream Colurado, plf;}Sf. r.0ntn rt mf. [
greatly aIJIJreciate any input. ~