BOARD00469

• Board Meeting Date: 5/12/1976
• Description: Agenda or Table of Contents, Minutes, Resolution
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

I

I

the problem here is that the request that is being made to this Board
for minimum stream flows in areas where there shouldn't be a minimum
stream flow. The situation on Junction Creek is a prime example of
this. The Division of Wildlife and the Board are being asked to give a
minimum stream flow on Junction Creek from the headwaters down to the
confluence of the Animas River.. It runs right through the middle of
the town of Durango and then goes on u~ to Junction Creek Valley there
where there is a lot of land that hasn t been developed. It's not
suitable for mass subdivision, but it is suitable for private individual
dwellings. There is no water system up there. I know there's a lot of
people that would like to build houses up there, and perhaps they are
waiting until costs come down to where they can afford it. But if this
Board files for a minimum flow on Junction Creek or on Lightner Creek
in the manner that is set forth on this schedule here, indeed, the
State Engineer has not yet classified Junction Creek or Lightner Creek
as critical areas as, they have in other areas of the San Juan Basin.
But if this decree went into effect, the fact that Junction Creek is
dry in the wintertime and so is Lightner Creek, he would then have to
say to an individual person who applies for a well permit in that area,
"I cannot grant you that well permit, because you're going to be
depriving the state of Colorado of its minimum stream flow unless you
can augment the river in some way." And there is no way for him to
augment the river when it goes dry in the wintertime. There is. no way
for him to put any storage there, because in the summertime most of the
water in Lightner Creek and Junction Creek is already appropriated by
junior appropriators and they are all being taken out and there isn't
any water available for him to use.

So it seems to me that part of the problem is the length of the stream.
Now when we're talking about minimum stream flows, most of the time
I'm thinking about these high mountain streams as Mr. Robbins mentioned,
and maintaining a nice, pretty stream up above already developed areas.
But in this situation on Lightner Creek ~nd Junction Creek both, it's
merely going to deprive any further development in those areas in terms
of housing and things like that, because there is 110 way that they can
get the water to augment those streams when they go dry in the winter-
time. It's just not there.

So I would thin~ that perhaps an acceptable alternative would be to cut
down on the length of the designation of the minimum stream flow. If
you get ten miles up above Durango on Junction Creek, there is no
possibility that anybody's going to build a house up there because
they're on the National Forest and perhaps that's where the stream flow
should be. at a minilIlUID to keep somebody from coming in there and appro-
priating it and diverting it out up there. But when you get down into
the valley, say, a mile outside of the town of Durango where it's
already developed, but there is room for further development, to say to
those people that you can't drill a well down there is going to make
some of these people awfully mad.

MR. STAPLETON: Mr. Sherman had a connnent first.

MR. SHERMAN: It does not relate to Sam's question. I would like to ask

-33-