Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Stream and Lake Protection Program <br />Summary of Resolved Cases <br /> <br /> <br />Section 9.41 of the ISP Rules states that: <br /> <br />"In the event the pretrial resolution includes terms and conditions preventing injmy or interference and does <br />not involve a modification, or acceptance of injmy or interference with mitigation, the Board is not required to <br />review and ratify the pretrial resolution. Staff may authorize its counsel to sign any court documents necessary <br />to finalize this type of pretrial resolution without Board ratification." <br /> <br />Staff has resolved issues of potential injury in the following water court case and authorized the Attorney General's <br />Office to enter into stipulations that protect the CWCB's water rights: <br />(1) Case Nos. 4-02CW44; Lake City <br /> <br />The Board ratified this statement of opposition in March 2002. The Board's main objective in filing a statement of <br />opposition in this case was to assure that the Applicant does not divert at the upstream Ballfield Well as an <br />alternate point of diversion at times when the CWCB's intervening instream flow water rights are not satisfied <br />unless the Applicant had adequate upstream augmentation water. The Staff, in cooperation with the Attorney <br />General's Office, has negotiated a settlement that assures that the CWCB's instream flow water rights will not be <br />injured. <br /> <br />The Board holds the following instream flow rights, which could have been injured by this application: <br /> <br />Case No. <br />4-84CW387 <br />4-80CW282 <br /> <br />Stream <br />Henson Creek <br />Lake Pork of the Gunnison River <br /> <br />Amount ( cfs) <br />25/15 <br />45/25 <br /> <br />Ap1?ropriation Date <br />5/4/1984 <br />3/17/1980 <br /> <br />The Applicant has agreed to the following terms and conditions that will provide full protection for the Board's <br />instream flow water rights on the Lake Pork of the Gunnison River and on Henson Creek: <br /> <br />· The altemate point of diversion decreed herein is subject to the instream flow water rights decreed to the <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board in Case Nos. 84CW387 and 80CW282, Water Division No.4, and the <br />water rights will not be exercised at the Ballfield Well to the extent that the flows within the relevant instream <br />flow reach would be reduced below the Colorado Water Conservation Board's decreed instream flow rates by <br />virtue of the exercise of such rights. <br />. The Applicant provided documentation that the Ballfield well is within 200 feet of the alluvial stream and <br />therefore curtailment will be an adequate remedy (as opposed to requiring augmentation releases) when the <br />CWCB's instream flow water rights are not being satisfied. <br /> <br />(2) Case No. 5-97CW290; SolVista, Inc., Silver Creek Water and Sanitation District, and SilverCreek <br />Meadows, LLC <br /> <br />The Board ratified the statement of opposition filed in this case at its March 1998 meeting. The Applicant is <br />seeking new junior ground water rights, storage water rights, a change of water rights, and a plan for augmentation. <br />The Board has instream flow water rights on the Praser River that may have been injured by this application. The <br />Board's main objective in filing a statement of opposition in this case was to prevent the Applicant from expanding its <br />water rights and from diverting out-of-priority without providing adequate augmentation water, and time and amount, <br />upstream of where the depletions impact the Praser River. The Staff, in cooperation with the Attorney General's <br />Office, has negotiated a settlement that fully protects the Board's instream flow water rights. <br /> <br />I <br />