BOARD00819 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

< (7;. 1-- ( , L Nf)V 12 l$S8 THE PlSGAH RESER.VOlR. AND DITCH COMPANY =========="'====--;~;=;~:-~;~:, P.O. Box 352, Rocky Fo~d'ir;t~~~;- November 12, 1998 Minimum stream Flow Section Colorado Water Conservation Board 1313 Sherman Street, Room 721 Denver, CO 80203 Attention: Dan and Mark Gentlemen: Thank you for explaning that the Colorado Water Conservation Board will consider minimum stream flow for a segment of Four Mile Creek based upon the request of Bureau of Land Management for a minimum stream flow of 13 cfs. Staff of Colorado Water Conservation Board determined that a flow of 13 cfs was not available for either the en~F~ se~ent of the stream or the entire year. . The determination led to the subject stream flow segment being divided into four reaches. An estimate of available water supply was then determined for each reach by (1) using rain gauges outside the four corners of the drainage area, (2) determining an average rainfall, and (3) applying the average rainfall to drainage area for each reach. The estimated available water supply was then correlated with the stream flow record below the confluence of Cripple. Creek and diversion records of the ditches within each reach for a five year period commencing in 1992. Staff then recommended that the entire available total average flow be claimed as minimum flow. Your claim for a minimum flow of 13.cfs above Park Center Ditch was based upon the fact that the ditches were dive~ing 13 cfs. Just because flow is available to supply downstream diversions, it does not necessarily stand to reason that all of that flow should be categorized asminim\.llll stream flow. Your claim should be for water necessary to supplY the beneficial use of minimum flow, not the total supply available for diversion. Even when excess water is available, the Water Court has a record of limit- ing decreed priorities to the amount of water reasonably necessary for the stated beneficial use.