Laserfiche WebLink
<br />_,:;;r;,. <br /> <br />....-- <br /> <br />t <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Minimum stream Flow Section <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board <br />November 12, 1998 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />It appears to me that your claim of available total average flow <br />may be a preferred, or optimum flow, rather than the minimum flow <br />necessary for the beneficial use of maintaining fish populations <br />and preserving the natural environment to a reasonable degree. <br />By claiming more than is necessary for the beneficial use, you <br />deprive, or limit others of the opportunity of (1) appropriation, <br />(2) transfer to points upstream, (3) change of use and (4) <br />exchange upstream. It also appears that Staff (and possibly the <br />BLM) is more concerned with li~iting movement of decrees upstream <br />than they are with the beneficial use of water for minimum stream <br />flow. I believe your concern is not warranted in light of the <br />Water Court's record of keeping the river whole in past change <br />decree cases. <br /> <br />Water is used and reused on Four Mile Creek. Some appropriators <br />divert the total flow on occasion, while at the same time decrees <br />of downstream appropriators are supplied by return flow and <br />accretions. You stated that the filing for minimum flow will (1) <br />not change current diversion practices, (2) not change the flow <br />in the segment, (3) allow decrees to be moved downstream, and (4) <br />only allow decrees moved upstream to change within the available <br />flow above decreed minimum stream flow. <br /> <br />Present diversion practices cause the stream below diversion <br />points to sometimes be without surface flow. When asked about <br />the possible lack of flow at points within the segment, you <br />explained that in the case of low, or nonexistent flow, your 1998 <br />minimum flow priority is just not filled. What you did not <br />explain is that the fish survive under current conditions, <br />vegetation is lush and need for excessive minimum stream flow is <br />doubtful for Four Mile Creek. <br /> <br />"Minimum stream Flow" seems to be a misnomer. There is no action <br />taken which provides a minimum flow. The process which you <br />explained sets a continuous gauge on stream flow as of the date <br />of the minimum stream flow decree and prevents any process which <br />would reduce flow from that currently in the segmented section <br />with existing diversion practices. <br />