Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- 2 - <br /> <br />the State Engineer, a low flow of 2.07 c.f.s. was gauged in October 1957, and <br />conditions during more recent years (SUCh as January 1980, April 1990, and most <br />of October 1992) have diminished the flow of Dallas Creek to less than 10 c.f.s. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Throughout the four years that we have appeared as Objectors in the Water <br />Court, our goal has been to secure the abandonment back to the stream of <br />approximately 8 c.f.s. of this water right to prevent adverse affect. We believe <br />we will achieve our goal, either through a negotiated settlement or through a <br />decision by the court. Further, we expect that resolution will occur within the <br />next few months. Details of the case are attached separately for your <br />interest, inclUding information on our attorney who is available to discuss any <br />statement. <br /> <br />Because of the timing of our Water Court case and the rapid encroachment of <br />development, we urgently appeal to your Board to initiate proceedings for In- <br />Stream Flow protection on Dallas Creek during your next filing period. We are <br />aware that this stream is heavily oversubscribed in the summer, but that is a <br />time when wildlife generally seeks higher terrain. It is the critical Non- <br />Irrigation Season - when the deer are at rut in our valleys and bald eagles <br />fish along our creek banks - that is now at urgent and serious risk. With each <br />passing month we learn of new development plans to the detriment of this <br />environment, and it will be only through action by your Board that this preciOUS <br />natural resource might be preserved for future generations. . <br /> <br />Finally, we wish to mention that In-Stream Flow filings already exist on <br />both the East Fork and West Fork of Dallas Creek, areas situated at higher <br />elevations. It is our fervent hope that you will afford equal consideration to <br />the main body of the stream as it traverses the Ridgway valleys. Because of our A <br />impending Water Court decision (as well as the accelerated pace of water filings ., <br />by new residents), we recommend that the Colorado Water Conservation Board look <br />at a suggested minimum In-Stream Flow of 5 to 8 c.f.s. to cover the full non- <br />irrigation period. <br /> <br />We appreciate any effort that you can devote to this appeal on a most urgent <br />basis. Should you have questions, or require further assistance from us, please <br />do not hesitate to call our designated spokesperson, Carol Huey at (970) <br />626-5657. . <br /> <br />We look forward to your favorable response. <br /> <br />Sincerely yours, <br /> <br />d'~ ""X^-~.. <br />~ . <br />Frank M. Huey <br />1400 County Road 24 <br />Ridgway, 00 81432 <br /> <br />f?:u~ ~ ~u/. <br /> <br />Carol L. Huey, Spokesperson <br />1400 County Road 24 <br />Ridgway, 00 81432 <br /> <br />e <br />