Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1-94CW256 Blue Creek .75 (4/15-10/15) 11/3/94 <br />.25 (10/16-4/14) <br />1-94CW259 Bear Creek 10 (4/15-10/15) 9/13/94 <br />5 (10/16-4/14) <br />1-94CW260 Bear Creek 15 (4/15-10/15) 9/13/94 <br />7 (10/16-4/14) <br />None of these applications have yet been decreed, and ,a week-long trial is scheduled for <br />March 2002. Cons1.lmptive use credits associated with \:he Harriman and Warrior ditches, <br />and water stored in Soda Lakes, will not replace depletions in time, place and amount to <br />augment the depletions that will impact the Board's instream flow rights on North Turkey <br />Creek, Bear Creek, Cub Creek and Blue Creek. In addition, since the wastewater might be <br />treated and discharged into Cub Creek downstream of the confluence with Blue Creek, the <br />Board's instream flow rights might be impacted by ft\ll diversions between the point of <br />diversion and the outfall of the wastewater treatmel1t pll!llt on Cub Creek. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Summary of Trial <br />On Mayl2, 1997, the Board authorized the Atto1'l1ey General to proceed to trial in Case <br />94CW290, primarily to protect the seniority of the Board's instream flow appropriations in <br />the Bear Creek system. InCase 94CW290, Applicants had claimed an appropriation date of <br />September 12, 1994, for their proposed ground water rights, surface water right~, storage <br />rights, as well as all proposed exchanges. The Bom:d's rights on mainstem Bear Creek hold <br />a September 13, 1994 appropriation date and the Beat Creek tributaries, including North <br />Turkey Creek, hold an appropriation date ofNovemb~r 3, 1994. If Applicants' proposed <br />appropriation date of September 12, 1994, were to be granted, their water rights would <br />have been senior to the Board's appropriations, thus limiting water available for the <br />instream flow appropriations. The purpose of the Board's pursuing trial was to hold <br />Applicants to strict proof of the appropriation date that they claimed in Case 94CW290. <br />Several other objectors in this case participated in the trial, among them, state and Division <br />Engineers, Foothills Metropolitan Recreational and Park District, Evergreen Metropolitan <br />District, Town of Morrison, and a number of local homeowners, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Subsequent to a lengthy trial held on July 19 through 23, 1999, and January 24,25,26, and <br />28,2000, the Water Court ruled that Buffalo Park et at had failed to meet the "can and <br />will" test if the CWCB's instream flow claims were senior to those proposed in Case <br />94CW290, provided that the Board would obtain decrees for its appropriations, The Court <br />vacated the rest of the proceedings until the CWCB's instream flow claims were either <br />decreed or dismissed. The Board's water right claims lU'e scheduled for trial in March 2002. <br />Buffalo Park Inc. et ai, Applicants for Case 94CW290; are the only remaining objectors to <br />the Board water rights. All other objectors to the Board's rights have already stipulated and <br />are out of these cases. ' <br /> <br />Stinulation <br />The attached stipulation and proposed decree rec9gnize the seniority of the Board's <br />appropriation, while providing for the proposed water development specified in Case <br /> <br />. <br />