Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />BETTY C. BECHTEL <br />WILUAMH.T.FREY <br />lUCHARD H. KlU)HN <br />LAIJU) T. MJLBURN <br />FLtm B. OGLE <br />MICHAEl. C. SANTO <br /> <br />DUFFORD, WALDECK, MILBURN & KROHN, L.L.P. <br />ATTORNEYS AT LAW <br /> <br />1<< HOmON COURT, SUITE JOO <br />GRA.'W 1UNCTJON. CO 11506 <br />TELEPHONE: (910) 2A!.SSOC <br />FAX: (97C)20.ml <br /> <br />M_ <br />IUDtlFFOItD <br />WIWAMO. WALDECK <br /> <br />NAlHAN A. KEEVER <br />SAM D. STAIUUTT <br /> <br />MONTROSE OffICE: <br />2.22 B SOUTH P AlU(. AVENUE <br />MONTROSE., CO 11401 <br />TBLEI"HONE: (970) 149004500 <br />FAX; (970)249.55)7 <br /> <br />July 2, 1998 <br /> <br />Peter H. Evans <br />Acting Director <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 712 <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br /> <br />Wendy C. Weiss <br />First Assistant Attorney General <br />Colorado Attorney General's Office <br />Natural Resources Section <br />1525 Sherman Street, Third Floor <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br /> <br />Re: Case Nos. 9SCW296 and 9SCW297, Division 5 <br /> <br />Dear Peter and Wendy: <br /> <br />This letter states the position of Orchard Mesa Irrigation District (OMID) regarding the <br />pending instream flow filings for the IS Mile Reach in Case Nos. 9SCW296 and 95CW297. <br /> <br />First, OMID joins in the positions stated in Glenn Porzak's May 27,1998, letter and Scott <br />Balcomb/Lori Satterfield's letters dated May 7,1998, and June 3,1998. In addition, as one of <br />the few water users involved in this process owning a right diverted within the IS Mile Reach (at <br />OMID's 29 Road Pump Station), OMID has substantial concerns that both the recovery flow and <br />the base flow rights would directly affect its future ability to effect even minor changes to that <br />portion of its water system. I <br /> <br />These direct impacts could be addressed, in part, by a stipulation that the instream flow <br />rights would not be used a basis to object to a change implemented by water users located within the 15 <br />Mile Reach, so long as the change did not result in an overall expansion of use. Although similar <br />stipulations were reached with several parties in Case No. 94CW330, Water Division No.5, Wendy has <br />previously told me that the CWCB would not entertain a similar stipulation in these cases. lfthe CWCB <br />determines that it will proceed with the base flow filing, I urge it to reconsider this position. <br /> <br />2'd <br /> <br />~J3al~M ~ a~Ojjna Wd6.:E0 86, 20 lnr <br />