BOARD01914

• Board Meeting Date: 12/4/1974
• Description: Agenda or Table of Contents, Minutes, Resolution
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

We have another problem over on the Fryingpan. I don't know how this
is going to come out either. This is still in the litigation stage
where the owner of a water right is asking to change that right from
irrigation use to a domestic year round use. On the Fryingpan the
minimums are very near the actual stream flows during the winter months.
My feeling is that if the engineers for the people who want to make the
change can demonstrate this will not affect the minimum stream flows. I
then the state has no chips in the game. We have filed a protest. If . _
they are willing to make their winter uses subordinate to the minimum
stream flows which we have already decreed on the Fryin?pan. I have no
objection to that because that again protects the state s interest.

I don't think it is appropriate for this board to determine whether or
not minimum stream flows are good or bad. The legislatUre has made
that determination and instructed us to go ahead. If the change in the
use in the stream would deplete the flow below the mimimum stream flow
decrees which we have obtained or which we are about to obtain. then I
think we must object to those changes.

Mr. Vandemoer: Is the state boarg going to wait on irrigation streams.
especially on the South Platte. until the change in point of diversion
can be tested? My thought is that in our area we are making changes
in point of diversion daily or weekly on a big scale. If we would do
this on the South Platte River as you suggest I think it would really
make just shambles out of our. decree. in that river.

Mr. Moses: I don't know how many thousands of streams there are in
Colorado. but there are a lot of them. The Division of Wildlife and
this board have a limited number of personnel available to make the
studies and to make the filings. This is going to be a program which
will extend over a number of years. There have been no reports as far
as I know that have been made on the South Platte. As a practical
matter, when you get an alternate point of diversion to a well from a
surface right, and I think that is what you are referring to about the
number of changes that are going on on the Platte. you are going to
leave more water in the stream probably than you have initially.

Mr. Vandemoer:
then sometimes
stream.

When the wells do take over and make the change why
that water is moved from one headgate to another on the

Mr. Moses: On the South Platte all I can say is that there are no
studies before us at. this time. . I don't know when they.are going to be.

One other thing. It would be my position that if there were water in I
the stream available for the surface rights the fact that that right
has been transferred to a well does not give the state or anybody else
the right to adversely affect that priority because that is older and
senior to the instream right. So I don't think the fact you can change
the point of diversion from a surface stream to a well would take away
your protection that you have by having the senior water.

Mr. GeisSin~er: I agree with that. I don't think there really is a
problem. T ere may be sometime. Herb. I think when that type of case
aris~s then this board probably would take a different action than they

-33-