Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,,' . <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Gumrison in stream flows issues <br />May 6, 2005 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />There is not as much information ayailable on the Crawford area. The Crawford Water <br />Conseryancy District is concerned about existing exchanges out of Crawford Reseryoir. These <br />exchanges are used for the irrigation of lands upstream of Crawford Reservoir. The area is <br />yery water short and most of the water currently used for irrigation is imported into the area. <br /> <br />Concerns Over the Potential Impacts of the Proposed ISF Filings <br /> <br />There are a large number of existing springs and cabin ponds that are not decreed. There are <br />also existing undecreed stock ponds in the Upper Ragged Creek area. It is not known how <br />many indiyidual wells are exempt. Steye Tuck estimated that there were perhaps 100 AF of <br />depletions by undecreed springs and ponds upstream of the call on the North Fork. <br /> <br />Don Meyer noted that Lori Torikai at the Division of Water Resources in Denver has a good <br />database and GIS coverage of well permits. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />It would take a significant effort to locate and calculate the depletions for the numerous non- <br />exempt wells and the undecreed springs, cabin ponds, and stock ponds. Eyen if these users <br />could file this year and claim a date senior to CWCB ISF rights, there would be a need to <br />augment these depletions during the June through October period when there is an existing <br />downstream call. There are so many ponds and springs, however, that they have not been <br />administered and likely cannot be effectiyely administered in the future. There are also no <br />readily ayailable sources for augmentation in many areas. <br /> <br />Jeff Crane expressed the willingness to assist in informing the landowners in the North Fork <br />of the issue and the need to file for decrees and augmentation plans, but noted this effort <br />would take time, requiring identification of the landowners and contacting them yia mail. <br />Don Meyer indicated that the River District is acquiring county ownership maps in GIS <br />format. <br /> <br />Steye Tuck noted that there already existed a significant number of decreed CWCB !SF rights <br />in the basin. He said that there had been three meetings with water users in the basin and that <br />many water users in the basin expressed the opinion that there were a sufficient number of <br />ISF rights and they did not want CWCB to file for any additional rights. The general feeling <br />among the water users is that CWCB Staff is placing too large of a burden on the water users <br />in this area. The Division Engineer's office is also concerned that water users may be <br />unwilling to cooperate if they feel that cooperation will serve merely to identify them as water <br />users not haYing augmentation supplies. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Above Paonia Reservoir <br /> <br />The Bureau of Reclamation exchange of water from the reservoir for upstream irrigation is <br />not decreed. If the Bureau and/ or the upstream irrigators filed this year to decree existing <br />exchanges, these may be senior to the proposed CWCB ISF filings. Erin noted that these <br /> <br />C:\MARK\NEW_RECSI2005ISF OOCUMENTS\CONTESTED CASES\N FOLK ISF MEETING NOTES_5-6-051.DQC <br />