BOARD00625

• Board Meeting Date: 7/26/2006
• Description: ISF Section - Contested ISF Case - Arkansas River
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

Mr. Rod Kuharich

June 30, 2006

. ~

"

2

,;J

2004, create the Arkansas River Flow Management Program, which limits the Board of Water a
Works' ability to operate exchanges (both those described sbove and any future, junior .
exchanges) in the segment of the Arkansas River between the fish hatchery below Pueblo
ReservOir and 1he "combined flow location" below Moffat Street. Pursuant to the Arkansas
River Flow Management Program, at times when the flow in the Arkansas River immediately
below the fish hatchery located ai Pueblo Dam is at or below 100 c.f.s., the Board of Water
Worles (and other IGA parties) must reduce its exchanges as and to the extent necessary to attain
a flow of not less than 100 c, f.s. at that point. Calculation of the flow at the fish hatchery is the
sum of the flow at the Above Pueblo Gage plus the fish hatchery return flows. In addition. when
the flow at the combined flow location is less than 85 c f.s the Board of Water Works (and other
lOA parties) must reduce its exchanges as and to the exlent ntX:essary to attain a flow of nolless
than 85 c.f.s. at that point. Calculation of the combined flow location IS the sum of the flow at
the Moffat Street Gage plus the Arkansas River Tributary above Hwy 227 Gage.

The Board of Water Works requests that the proposed ISf be measured and administered at the
same flow rates and same pOints as the Arkansas River Flow Management Program and that the
CWCB not request that 100 c.f.s. be maintained throughout the entirety of both reaches of the
ISF. BecallSe of the diversions In the reach. to maintain 100 c.f.s. throughout the entire reach of
the two proposed segments would require an amount greater than 100 c.f.s. at the fish hatchery
and 85 c.f.s at the combined flow localion, Thus, the Board should restrict the appropriation in
the lower reach 10 85 c.f,s. as measured at the combined t1.ow location.

The Board of Water Works' senior direct flow, storage, and exchange water rights will not be
adversely affected by the propo~ed ISF. However. in order to maintain flexibility in its water
supply and to meet future water demands of its customers, tbe Board of Water Works will need
to add water tights to its water rights portfolio. Such additional water supplies will probably
come from either existing Arkansas River Basin water rights acquired or leased by the Board of
Water Works and changed to use In its water supply system or from additional transmountain
water rights. If not measured and administered as 100 c.!.s. at the fish hatchery and 85 c.f.s, at
the combined flow location, the proposed ISF would impair, beyond the impainnent the Board of
Water Works has already agreed 10 in the Arkansas River flow Program, the ability of the Board
of Water Works to acquire downstream water rights and move them upstream to its point of
diversion. In addition, to receive the full benefil from these water rights, the Board of Waler
Works will need to recapi\:re and reuse any unconsumed portion of the historical consumpl1ve
use water or imported water. If the proposed ISF is administered so that at least 100 c.f.s. must
be maintained throughout the enl1rety of both reaches, this would interfere with the upstream
exchanges necessary for the Board of Water Works to recapture and reuse the unconsumed
portion of lhese additional water supplies. '

Thus, as stated above, while the Board of Water Works supports the CWCB'~ adjudication of the
proposed Arkansas River ISF, It submits this Kotice to Contest 10 request that, consistenl with
the Arkansas River Flow Management Program, that the ISF be quantified, measured and
administered on the same basis as the 100 c.f,s minimum flow at the fish hatchery and 85 c.f.s. at
the combined flow location as provided for in Arkansas River Flow Management Program,

.

I