BOARD01567

• Board Meeting Date: 5/1/1975
• Description: Agenda or Table of Contents, Minutes, Memos
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

I

I

water board for a flow of one cfs on Gageby Creek. 'rt1e recommendation
was made to preserve an important waterfowl marshland on the lower
reaches of Gageby Creek. It is a small amount of water, but it is
important to maintain that wildlife habitat.

Mr. . Burr: You are putting wildlife ahead of agriculture on that one
second foot?

Mr. Kochman: No. We are trying to reasonably understand the needs of
the agricultural interest, domestic and manufacturing. I don't think we
are trying to directly get in conflict with any interest.

Mr. Burr: You are trying to get the second foot of water.

Mr. Kochman: That is right, but at the same time I hope that other
interests. recognize our needs. Mr. Ward Fisher gave a very excellent
presentation at the last board meeting. We met with Mr. Fisher. We met
with other water users. We voluntarily withdrew our recommendation on
the Poudre. We told Mr. Fisher that we want to cooperate in working on
the Poudre. I think he displays that same spirit of cooperation, and
I would hope that every other user has that same interest and sincerity.

Mr. Moses: I must confess I don't know where Gageby Creek is, but I
know where the Fort Lyon canal is. I think that the law is clear, that
even with an appropriation, nobody is entitled to the maintenance of
waste or seepage water. If anybody above decides to quit irrigating,
that is his business. If he decides to quit running water in the ditch,
that is also his business. I don't think in this particular case that
the Colorado Water Conservation Board, if it got a decree for one second
foot on Gsgeby Creek, would be in a valid position to protest any change
of point of diversion by the Fort Lyon Canal Company which would reduce
or eliminate the amount of water flowing at that point. That is different
from changing the point of diversion out of a stream so there is no
water in the stream on which the original headgate is located. Now, I
may be wrong, Fort Lyon may have a headgate to Gageby Creek, but I
suspect it does not. It is probably water that either seeps out of the
canal or comes from lands that are irrigated above the canal. If that
is the case, I don't think there is a valid basis on the part of the
board to object to that kind of a change.

Mr. Stapleton: Ralph, do you have the last word on this one second foot?

Mr. Adkins: Not; necessarily, one of the features and one of the very
important features of the Fryingpan project is the winter storage program
which, if successful, will result in the Fort Lyon Canal Company, as
well as the other of the canals in the valley, storing their historic
winter irrigation water in the Pueblo Reservoir for use in the following
season. Now, the minute that is done, you are going to change the flow
in Gageby, when you cut out all of that irrigation during those months.
If under the Colorado law, the junior has the right to the maintenance
of the stream as it was when he got his decree, this would simply mean
that you have automatically changed that regimen the minute you stopped
your winter irrigation. I certainly don't want to see something like

-21-