BOARD00054

• Board Meeting Date: 1/12/1998
• Description: ISF Section - Acceptance of Injury with Mitigation
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

e

e

e

4.

The Town should be requested to disclose to the parties its
previous studies (a 1992 "needs" study) and any such other
engineering memoranda or detail that would support their request.

5. The Board should consider the litigation with Eric Jacobsen and,
based on its determination of that litigation, if it feels that the
Town will have limited or perhaps no storage in Blue Lake then
there would be no reason for this action. Alternatively, the Board
may wish to continue final action on this matter until that litigation
has been concluded. (Our understanding from the Town's
representatives is that Mr. Jacobsen is claiming that the Tdwn has
no storage rights in Blue Lake or, at the most, 600 acre feet of
active or dead storage. That perhaps needs to be clarified.)

San Miguel Valley Corp.'s expression of concerns to the Colorado Water Conservation
Board were all founded on issues raised by the application to which information had not been
provided. We were particularly concerned that no evidence was presented relative to the
examination of other reasonable alternatives. During our meeting with the Town's
representatives it was disclosed that the Mill Creek option had been reviewed and it was found
that there would be an inadequate physical supply to justify an expansion of the Mill Creek plant
-71 ",every one in fifty years. It was opined that perhaps a review of the data would give the same
>,,-,"1 result for every one in five years. We think the initial data is far too conservative and that
additional studies should be conducted to determine what additional flows in Mill Creek could be
economically recovered.

The Town has indicated that reduction in flows in the San Miguel River above the
confluence of Bear Creek would impact the water quality to some extent. We don't have enough
information to know whether that impact would be material, Since the legal standard before the
Board (in order for it to grant such a request) is based upon the applicants having reviewed the
other alternatives. We believe that in addition to the "needs" study and the written report with
respect to Mill Creek, the town should supply the Board with a written summary of its analysis of
developing the town wells in the town park, developing a well field on San Miguel Valley Corp.
property west of town, and whether it could develop an environmentally sensitive pipeline in
Bear Creek with a water plant at the base of Bear Creek. We received verbal comments on all of
those alternatives, but fee(that they should be summarized in written form showing the . ,,,-
engineering analysis of each of those alternatives.

Given approval by the Board of the parameters and suggestions outlined in this letter, and
subject to review of the additional materials requested from the Town, San Miguel Valley Corp.
would have no objection to the granting of the Town's application for their injury to a minimum
stream flow with mitigation proposal.

3