BOARD01013 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.l 'I" ,J I ~i!i! RES 0 U R C E 1li1llE1DBI Ifl&Ulfill E N GIN E E R I N GIN C . . Mr. Dan Merriman Colorado Water Conservation Board 1313 Shennan Street, Suite 721 Denver CO 80203 September 30, 2004 RE: Basalt Water Conservancy District, Case Nos. 01CW305, 02CW177 and 02CW78, Water DMsion NO.5 Dear Dan: . On March 8, 2004 David Hallford and I met with you, your technical staff and attorney for the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) to discuss the above referenced water right applications filed by the Basalt Water Conservancy District (District). Our discussions focused on whether or not adequate exchange capacity exists in the Roaring Fork River immediately upstream of its confluence with the Fryingpan River. The District has several existing water allotment contractees within this reach who rely on releases from Ruedi Reservoir (Fryingpan River) to augment, by exchange, their indMdual domestic water systems. As you recall, we became concerned regarding the 'exchange potential' within this reach after Resource Engineering, Inc. (RESOURCE) measured the flows of the Roaring Fork River on August 12, 2002 to be 45.0 cfs, a full 10.0 cfs less than the 55 cfs decreed instream flow water right. Subsequent to our March 8111 meeting, RESOURCE has completed additional review of this issue and would like to share our findings with you. We have recently focused attention on three major Irrigation ditches located within the critical reach above the confluence with the Frylngpan River. Each ditch is relatively large and diversions are totally depletive to the study reach including the location at which RESOURCE made its August 12, 2002 streamflow measurement. The three ditcheS include: 1. Grace and Shehi Ditch; total decree = 21.0 cl's 2. Home Supply Ditch; total decree = 59.0 cfs 3. Forker/Arbaney - Cerise Ditch; total decree = 12.6 as Daily diversion records maintained by the D(vision 5 Engineer's office reveal that on the date that RESOURCE measured streamflows to be below CWeB minimums (August 12, 2002), two of the three ditches _re diverting amounts of water well in excess of their decreed water rights senior to the instream flow. The infonnation for the third ditch was inconclusive as the State's records reflect that diversion was occurring, however the amount was not quantified. The amount of water diverted in excess of the respective decrees was significant. The Grace and Shehi Ditch decreed for 21.0 cfs was diverting 27 cfsl. The Home Supply Ditch decreed for 59.0 cfs was diverting 71 cfs. Together the two ditches were diverting 18 cfs in excess of their decrees. Had the ditches been limited to their decreed . I The diversion RCOrd indicates !bat the ditch was diverting 32.3 cfs, not 27.0 cIS. However, Resource Engineering, Inc. is liuni/iar with the measuring flume and is aware that the flume is partially submerged at high flow. Ata flow rate of32.3 as measured by the flume sllIff, the flow is measuring )g.l% too high. TherefoR after col1'eCtion for submergence, the ditch on August 12, 2002 was flowing at 27.0 cIS. Consulting Engineers and Hydrologists ......-.-..... .