BOARD01013 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . J) ~ - 2- Case No. 0lCW305 proposes a plan for augmenta1ion and exchange that will provide a legal water supply for approximately 120 water contract users in the District who are now opera1ing under an annual Substitute Water Supply Plan. A major source of augmentation water for the proposed plan is releases from Ruedi Reservoir, located on the Fryingpan River. Releases from the Reservoir enter the Roaring Fork River at its confluence with the Fryingpan River. Of the 120 water users, 20 are located on the Roaring Fork River upstream of its confluence with the Fryingpan River. These users will be augmented by exchange as the Reservoir releases do not directly enter this reach of river. Case No. 02CW77 proposes a plan for augmentation and exchange for wa1er users that have joined or will join the District's Operating Plan on or after January I, 2005. The application, referred to as the "Umbrella Plan," seeks to establish specific exchange reaches and exchange amounts a1 locations throughou1 the District's service area, including the Roaring Fork River upstream of its confluence with the Fryingpan River. Within thai reach of the Roaring Fork, the District requests an exchange of up to 2.25 cfs of depletions with a priority date of July 2, 200 I. The main area of concern in these cases is the reach of the Roaring Fork River between Maroon Creek and the Fryingpan River (hereinafter referred to as the "Critical Reach"), on which the CWCB holds an ISF water right for 55 cfs (April I-September 30) and 30 cfs (October I-March 31). The District's contractees' depletions within the Critical Reach are augmented by exchange since the District's various direct flow and storage rights accrue 10 the Roaring Fork River at or below its confluence with the Fryingpan River. The question has arisen as to whether adequate exchange capacity exists in the Roaring Fork River upstream of its confluence with the Fryingpan River to support the District's appropriative exchanges in the Critical Reach. The District asserts that sufficient exchange capacity exists in the Critical Reach to support the exchanges proposed in the two water court applications. According to the District, even in a severe drought year such as 2002, sufficient water was available to satisfy both the 55 cfs instream flow and proposed exchanges, but the District's research indicates that in 2002, two ditches on the Critical Reach were diverting a combined total of approximately 18 cfs above their decreed amounts. Statistical analyses completed by Resource Engineering, Inc., the District's consultant, conclude thai Roaring Fork River stream flows will drop to levels observed in August and September 2002 on a projected recurrence interval between I year in 100 to I year in 300. To address the CWCB's need for certainty in pro1ection of its ISF water rights, the Dis1rict explored several alternatives designed to increase water supply to the Critical Reach, but concluded thai no alternatives are feasible. Consequently, the District has reques1ed the CWCB to accept injury with mitigation if stream flows drop below the CWCB's decreed ISF amounts while the District is operating its Roaring Fork River exchange. This proposal would allow some injury to the Roaring Fork River ISF water right when sufficient exchange potential does not exist. The Dis1rict has proposed measures to reduce the frequency of that injury. Therefore, Staff is asking the Board to consider resolving this case under ISF Rule 8i. (3) (Injury Accepted with Mitigation). Flood Protection. Water Project Planning and Finance. Stream and Lake Protection Water Supply Protection. Conservation Planning