Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,- <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />NORTH FORK WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT <br />PO BOX 217 <br />Hotchkiss, CO 81419 <br />(970) 872-2155 <br /> <br />March 18, 2005 <br /> <br />Dan Merriman <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board <br />Dept. of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman Street, Suite 721 <br />Denver. CO 80203 <br /> <br />Dear Sirs: <br /> <br />I am writing to raise seyeral issues concerning the proposed Instream Flow f1lings on <br />.Muddy Creek, Anthracite Creek and Coal Creek, all tributary to the North Fork ofthe <br />Gunnison River. <br /> <br />To begin with, the CWCB has done a very poor job in communicating its intent to make <br />these filings and has not gathered input from effected water users in a timely fashion-i.e. <br />before establishing an intent to appropriate. The only reason there has been any public <br />input is because bsked Keith Catlin about the proposed filings llPd indicated there would <br />be concerns locally about them. He requested the CWCB staff hold a meeting in <br />Hotchkiss to explain the ISF filings. Two meetings followed which were well attended <br />and helpful. Had these meetings been held a year earlier, with better public notice, they <br />would have helped to build a workable consensus. As it is, with the intent to appropriate <br />already established, there is widespread resentment of the process and a belief that local <br />concerns will not be listened to. Moreover, these filings are either within the boundaries <br />ofthe North Fork Water Conservancy District or tributary to streams within our <br />boundaries. It would seem, as a matter of process, that local water authorities should be <br />notified when filings which will impact them are made. Yes, we found out about these <br />ISF plans, but only because the River District and others brought them to our attention. <br />Yes, we should have been more diligent in watching out for potential filings in our area, <br />but the methods used by the CWCB only foster distrust. <br /> <br />Secondly, on a general level, it would seem from these ISF requests that there has been a <br />policy decision to appropriate most of the remaining water in streams statewide. I realize <br />that technically there is still water ayailable in the streams, particularly in peak runoff <br />times, but for much of the year the size of the requested flows will preclude any new <br />water development or change in diyersion or potentially any change in use. This appears <br />to be deliberate with the filings only being exceeded 50% of the time in some cases and <br />