BOARD02010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

'SEP-13-2001 THU 10:47 AM TROUT WITWER & FREEMAN FAX NO. 3038324485 P. 02/08 i. .,. .;.. '. From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Tom & Brooks, I thought I had more time for the heads up I'm giving you but I don't.. Claffey, Mike SPK Friday, July 07,20009:41 AM Carter, Brooks SPK; Cae, Thomas S SPK MaNure, Grady SPK Snowmass Creek petition from environ, group . The Snowmass-Capital Creek Caucus Is sending In a petition to the DE for us to review and modify the permit we issued to the Snowmass Water and Sanitation District (SWSD) for a diversion on Snowmass Creek, They will request that we amend the permit to set a minimum f10wthat is now used by the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCS). The water Distrtct's water right is senior to the CWCB's instream flow right so they can take the stream lower than the minimum flow. Brief history: In 1979 we issued an IP to the SWSD to construct a small dam across the creek to divert raw water for M&I water, During that process the Caucus objected to the permit and we /leld a public hearing which the DE attended, As a result of that hearing llnd other meetings, the Caucus llnd the SWSD developed a legal agreement that basically said the SWSD would search for an use other available water including storage before depleting SnowrT1ass Creek. SWSD serves the Town of Snowmass ViI111ge and tl'le ski area which is in the Brush Creek watershed, They pump water over the divide from Snowmsss Creek, The Caucus withdrew their objections to pelTl1it issuance based on this agreement and we issued a permit based on this agreement. 1t is In the record that we issued based on he agreement. Over the years, the SWSD has not really lived up to the agreement according to the Caucus and this is probably true. The Caucus recently sued the SWSD overthe agreement and lost in stete court. In 1994, the Snowmass Ski Company got the CWCS to change there minimum flow for the creek from 12 cis to 7 cfs so they could use Snowmass Water for snowmaking expansion. The ski company intended to use the SWSD diversion structure and SWSD would sell them water for snowmaklng, We got Involved on two fronts, one through an IP with the ski area that included the new snowmaking system and an analysis of the Impacts to Snowmass Creek of the increased winter diversions. We also notified the SWSD that since the original pelTl1it was for domestic water they would need to modify the permit to use the diversion for snowmaking, After many studies of the impacts to trout and many meetings we issued a permit modlflcation to the SWSD and a permit to the ski area in 1995 with a minimum flow for snowmaking diversions. We Included a minimum flow.because the CWC8's 7 cfs flow would create "significant" impacts tot he trout populations. We did not modify the SWSD permit for domestic water diversions and the minimum flow applied oniy to snowmaking diversions, We did notify them that we may need to re-evaluate our decision on the domestic water at some lime In the future, The Caucus worked with the CWC8 and the ski area to develop a new state minimum flow for the creek. The state Changed the flow from 7 cfs to a graduated minimum flow that Is keyed to the hydrograph and the snowmaking needs, The ski company does have to abide by the state's In- stream flow because they are Junior. The SWSD can taKe the stream down to 4 cfs unller there current water right. Right now our permit does not prohibit that as long as it is for municipal water. . The Caucus submittal will be received by h'e DE soon, probablY today and we will get a copy. They are requesting that we use the graduated minimum flow that the CWCB uses, They have a good deal of trout studies that demonstrate the impacts. As I said event he ski areas studies showed a significant Impact at 7 cfs so the impact is significant at 4 cfs, As Art has said we will