BOARD00707

• Board Meeting Date: 7/23/2001
• Description: ISF Section - Town of Basalt De Minimis Finding, Case No. 5-00CW252
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

e

Proposed Resolution
Pursuant to Section 9.41 of the CWCB's Rules and Regulations, the CWCB staff may only
enter into a pretrial resolution that prevents injury or ititerference to the Board's instream
flow water rights. '

In Case No. 90CW138, under the proposed augmentation plan, the Applicant could not
augment out-of-priority diversions that may occur to the Roaring Fork River upstream of
its confluence with the Fryingpan River (Case No. 5-85CW646) during the non-irrigation
season, November through April. While the Applicant had plans for using Well No. 13 in
Case No. 90CW138, the Applicant chose not to amend and republish at that time.
However, the Applicant included Well No. 13 in its analysis as it related to the CWCB's
,
instream flow water rights. Of the augmented struct1,iTes, only the Basalt RE-} School
District Well and Well No. 13 would have depleted tlie Roaring Fork River upstream of
the Fryingpan River confluence. The Applicant proposed that it be allowed to continue
diverting at these two wells through October, causing delayed pumping impacts to extend
into the month of November. The Applicant agn:ed to divert no more than 247 gpm at
either Well No. 13 or the Basalt RE-I School Distript Well. The Applicant agreed to
release water stored in Ruedi Reservoir to augment t~ese out-of-priority diversions and,
therefore, the Fryingpan River and the Roaring Fork River downstream of the Fryingpan
River confluence would not be affected. However, the! Applicant estimated that these out-
of-priority diversions could deplete a 2000-foot reach of the Roaring Fork River upstream
of the Fryingpan River confluence that could not be augmented with releases of water from
Ruedi Reservoir. The Applicant also asserted that stream gage information suggested that
the CWCB's instream flow water right has always been exceeded during the month of
November. The unaugmented diversions represen~ed approximately 0.081% of the
Board's Roaring Fork instream flow water right durinS the month of November (with the
cumulative impact under} %).

e

The Applicant approached the Board and requested that the Board authorize its staff to
enter into a pretrial resolution that is fully protective with the exception of allowing a de
minimis impact to a 2000-foot reach of its Roaring Fork River instream flow water right
during the month of November. The Board approved this resolution of Case No.
90CW138.

The Staff filed a statement of opposition to Case 1'(0. 00CW252 because the increased
diversions of 404 gpm at Well No. 13 could potentially increase the impacts to the Board's
instream flow water right on the Roaring Fork beyond the de minimis amount permitted.
However, the Applicant has provided evidence that while it may divert up to 404 gpm
from Well No. 13 during June and July of each year,ithe corresponding changes in stream
depletions are relatively minor. In fact, the Roaring Ifork River depletions during the non-
irrigation months decreased when pumping at Well No. 13 increased. There are two
reasons why the stream depletions decreased: '

e