BOARD00234

• Board Meeting Date: 7/23/2002
• Description: CWCB Director's Report
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

Stream and Lake Protection Program
Summary of Resolved Cases

.

Section 9.41 of the ISF Rules states that:

"In the event the pretrial resolution includes terms and conditionsipreventing injury or interference and does not
involve a modification, or acceptance of injury or interference with mitigation, the Board is not required to review and
ratify the pretrial resolution. Staff may authorize its counsel to sign any court documents necessary to finalize this type
of pretrial resolution without Board ratification."

Staff has resolved issues of potential injury in the following water court case and authorized the Attorney General's
Office to enter into stipulations that protect the CWCB's water rights:

(1) Case No. 5-01CW198; Martin and Kimberly Sayers

The Board filed this statement of opposition in January, 2002.: The Board's main objective in filing a statement of
opposition in this case was to assure that the Applicant does not make out-of-priority depletions at times when the
CWCB's intervening instream flow water rights are not satisfied: The Staff, in cooperation with the Attorney General's
Office, has negotiated a settlement that assures that the CWCB' s instream flow water rights will not be injured.

The Board holds the following instream flow rights which could have been injured by this application:

Case No.
5-98CW305

Stream
Muddy Creek

Amount(cfs) Appropriation Date
70 (5/1-5/14) 105 (5/15-6/30) 7/13/1998
70 (7/1-7/14) 20 (7/15-4/30)

The Applicant has agreed to the following terms and conditions: that will provide full protection for the Board's .
instream flow water rights on Muddy Creek:

. The Applicant agrees that at any time the stream flow in Muddy Creek is less than the seasonal amounts described
above, the Applicant will replace its out-of-priority depletions under its plan for augmentation, in time, place and
amount, or curtail its diversions.
. The Applicant also has agreed to install, maintain, and monitor such measuring devices as may be required by the
State and Division engineer to administer the terms of the 4ecree.

(2) Case No. 7-99CW66; DurangolLa Plata County Airport

The Board ratified the statement of opposition filed in this case at its March 20, 2000, meeting. The Board's main objective
in filing a statement of opposition in this case was to assure that the Applicant did not divert water at the upstream point of
diversion on the Florida River at times when the Board's instreatj:t flow rights on the Florida River were not being satisfied.
In addition, the Board sought to assure that the Applicant did not make out-of-priority depletions at times when the
CWCB's instream flow water rights on the Florida River were tl.ot being satisfied. You may recall that this matter was set
for trial in June of this year. A few weeks before trial, the Staff, in cooperation with the Attorney General's Office, was
able to negotiate a settlement that fully protects the Board's instr~am flow water rights.

The Board holds the following instream flow rights which could have been injured by this application:

Case No. Stream Amount (cfs) Ap.)lro\Jriation Date
W-1763-77 Florida River 7 (7/1-10/14) 14 (10/15-6/30) 1/19/1977
W-1764.77 Florida River . 12 (7/1-10/14) 20 (10/15-6/30) 1/19/1977

The Applicant has agreed to the following terms and conditiqms that are fully protective of the CWCB' s instream floe
water rights: