Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board <br /> <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />721 Centennial Building <br />1313 Sherman Street <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Phone: lJ03) 866.3441 <br />FAX: (303) 866.4474 <br /> <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />- <br /> <br />Roy Romer <br />Cove<no' <br />J;tmes S. lochhe.ld <br />Executive Dicet.,or. DNR <br />O"ries C. Lile. P.E. <br />Director. CWCB <br />J I'/"It <br /> <br />Mr. James Felt <br />Felt, Houghton, & Monson, LLC <br />319 North Weber Court <br />Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903 <br /> <br />DearMr~V <br />, I <br />v <br />Thank you for expressing your concerns at the November 1997 meeting of the Colorado <br />Water Conservation Board (CWCB) in regards to the Telluride Case 4-96CW313 and <br />the request for CWCB approval of an Injury With Mitigation proposal. <br /> <br />The CWCB would like you to confirm the concerns you expressed at the meeting, in <br />writing, and to solicit any further comments you may have. <br /> <br />At the meeting you expressed the following concerns with regard to the Telluride <br />proposal: <br /> <br />1) The availability of water from Blue Lake may be questionable based on: <br />a. The Jacobson lawsuit disputing ownership of the water rights. <br />b. The ldarado recall option on a portion of the water rights; <br />c. Toe T eleo first right of refusal for Blue Lake water. <br /> <br />2) The value of the proposed mitigation (not diverting water at Bear Creek) when earlier <br />comments from Telluride to the stakeholders group indicated that the diversion would <br />not be developed. <br /> <br />3) San Miguel Valley Corporation was relying on the 6.5 cfs in the river above Bear <br />Creek to assist in the remediation of the lower reaches of the San Miguel River. <br /> <br />4) That reduction of flows in the cootaminated reach could negatively affect the <br />contaminant loading of the river. <br /> <br />You also expressed your opinion that the CWCB should not approve this proposal for the <br />following reasons: <br /> <br />1) Accepting injury with mitigation would be setting a bad precedent. <br />2) The CWCB would be accepting an exchange that is outside of the priority system. <br />3) Other alternatives have not been considered including the existing "excess" water <br />rights and treatment plant located on Mill Creek. <br /> <br />F <br />- <br /> <br />L:IWCfRANSlSECC\Dan's SlUfI\FcIlll1',doc <br />