BOARD02112

• Board Meeting Date: 1/9/1978
• Description: Agenda, Minutes, Resolution
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

The.board!s appropriation of 250 second-feet from Piceance Creek down
amounts to about 181,000 acre-feet annually or about 39 percent of the:
river flow at the gauging station. That is a matter of considerable
concern to: Rio. Blanco County: and not. necessarily to the Yellow Jacket
Water Conservancy District which would be diverting upstream.:

I

Our analysis of. the White River. is that, .whether we want to or not, we
will have to.maintain a flow in the White. River for use in the state of
Utah, for. both the. oil shale industry: of that state and the Northern
Indian-Reservatibn-which is situated on the White River in the vicinity
of Fort Duchesne. We are not particularly worried about Colorado being
deprived of any water as a result of the board's appropriation.

This leaves about 279,000 acre-feet for appropriation in Colorado.
This is probably a higher figure than we will actually be-able. to put
to use. The White River, at this point in history, is already 100 per-
cent appropriated in Colorado by decrees which are senior to the
board's proposed decree. In this case, we are not necessarily involved
with a federal project. The potential projects down in that area would
be constructed either by private interests or municipalities--Rio Blanco
Cbunty~or wha~'have you.

In analyzing the flow and the difference in the flow at. Piceance. Creek
and downstream, we are hard put from a hydrologic viewpoint to demon-
strate that there is a sudden contribution. from Piceance Creek or the
tributaries in the amount of 50 second-feet. This becomes more
particularly apparent when you consider the upstream decrees existing
in the Piceance Basin which have already been filed upon by various
oil companies. We doubt that the contribution from Piceance Creek in
the future will amount to hardly anything at all. We are well aware,
however, that the cl).annel of the stream of the White River below
Piceance Creek widens out considerably, and. that from a fishery view-
point,- more water is required in a broader and wider channel than in
a more constricted channel because of .the 4epth of the water involved
and the freezing conditions which always exist on the. White River during
the winter months. There is a very valid reason, from a fishery view-.
point, as to .the increase in streamflow below Piceance Creek.

That area is not a trout fishery, but- it does contain fish, and we can I
no longer ignore the humpback chub, flannelmouth suckers and other
types of fish that we considered originally as trash fish. Some of
those fish are on the endangered species list and some of them will
undoubtedly be protected by the Endangered Species Act.

In viewing the hydrologic contribution of Piceance Creek, both now and
in the. future, we cannot justify the increase of 50 second-feet at

~22-