BOARD01451

• Board Meeting Date: 9/13/2004
• Description: ISF Section - Paul Moltz, Case No. 2-02CW073 - Consideration of Inundation Proposal or, in the Alternative, a Request for Authorization to Proceed to Trial
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

-4-

5. The Board is required to consider the benefits to recreation and downstream ISF segments .
arising from the inundation. There are no ISF segments downstream from the inundation except for
a two hundred feet stretch of Trout Creek that exists below the dam of the reservoir before the
stream peters out. As explained above, the land that Mr. Moltz exchanged with the BLM has
become an extremely important recreational site, providing a take-out and put-in point for rafts and
kayakers and public access for fishing. In addition, the stretch of the Arkansas River downstream
from the confluence of the Arkansas River and Trout Creek is probably one of the most heavily used
recreational waterways in Colorado and the entire United States.

6. The Board must consider the degree to which the proposed inundation will allow
development of Colorado's allotment of interstate waters as determined by compact or adjudication.
Clearly the inundation will promote additional development of Colorado's allotment of interstate
waters. The Arkansas River is an over-appropriated basin and benefits from trans-basin diversions
from the Colorado River basin. As such, any storage that promotes maximum use of Colorado's
waterresources, such as this one, will promote development of Colorado's allotment of interstate
waters.

7. The Board must consider any mitigation or compensation offered to offset adverse impacts
on the ISF rights. In this instance, the Applicant has offered to purchase a conservation easement,
and convey it to the CWCB or such other entity as the CWCB designates. While the conservation
easement will not provide additional trout spawning habitat, the easement will protect boreal toad
habitat in the nearby vicinity. In addition, the lake provides a lacustrine environment, which will
increase the overall habitat complexity for stream dwelling fish and aquatic species. The Applicant .
has also indicated that the lake environment provides some additional benefits to the natural
environment. The proposed mitigation seems appropriate in the given situation.

Authorization to Proceed to Trial

A trial is set in water court for October 2004. Should the Board decide not to grant (or grant with
conditions) the proposed inundation request, the Board must authorize the Staff to go to trial
pursuant to Rule 8j.

Staff Recommendation

As stated above, the Board must first determine whether this inundation interferes with the Board's
instream flow water right on Trout Creek. Then the Board may approve, approve with conditions,
defer or deny the request to inundate. Rule 7g requires the Board to consider all relevant factors
including the following seven specified factors.

The staff recommends that the Board:

Q
~

Determine that the proposed inundation interferes with the Board's instream flow

water right on Trout Creek.

Approve the proposed inundation with the following conditions, and any other

conditions that the Board deems appropriate:

Flood Protection. Water Project Plarming and Finance . Stream and Lake Protection
Water Supply Protection. Conservation Planning

.