BOARD02463

• Board Meeting Date: 3/22/2005
• Description: CWCB Director's Report
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

statements of opposition in seven cases. This approach conserves the time and resources of all interested
parties and the water court. Two applications involyed uses of water that existed at the time ofthe
Board's ISF appropriations. Staff contacted those applicants and water commissioners familiar with the
subject water uses, and obtained documentation of the existence of those uses on or before the date of the
relevant ISF appropriations to confirm that section 37-92-102(3)(b), c.R.S. applies to those proposed
water rights. In another case, the applicant had identified its depletions as de minimis, but its proposed
diversions appeared to be excessive for its proposed uses. Staff consulted with the applicant, resulting in
the applicant agreeing to reduce its application to an amount commensurate with its proposed uses, which
will have a de minimis impact on the Board's ISF water rights. In the remaining four cases, the applicants
sent a letter to the CWCB staff agreeing to include the following types of protective language to prevent
injury to the Board's ISF water rights:

In an application for exchange, acknowledged that the exchange to be decreed is junior to a specified ISF
water right and that the exchange won't be operated when the ISF water right is not being met.

In an application for diversion into ponds with pass-through back to stream, Applicant will not store any
pass through water in ponds when not in priority.

In an application for change of water right to add alternate point of diversion, Applicant will not divert at
alternate point when the ISF water right is not being met.

In an application for surface water right, storage water right and plan for augmentation, clarified that
irrigation under the junior surface right and storage right will occur only when those rights are in priority,
and will not be included in the plan for augmentation. (augmentation plan for pond evaporation only,
which is a de minimis impact).

Tamarisk Control Update: As mentioned above, Congress is again working on the tamarisk bills
through the introduction of S. 177 in the Senate and H.R. 489 in the House. The Tamarisk Coalition spent
two weeks in D.C. working with Colorado and New Mexico's delegation to develop compromise
language between the two bills. This language would resolve the roles of Interior and USDA, which
currently is the main issue between the bills. The support for passing this $100 million legislation
remains strong and bipartisan.

The Corps of Engineers is working with the state on potential funding through Section 206 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 to determine the feasibility of an aquatic ecosystem restorations
project for the Grand Valley area. This program has the opportunity of providing up to $5,000,000 for
river restoration, which would include tamarisk control. Mesa County is considering being the lead for
this grant application. The SECWCD was also invited to request funding from this Corps program.

The Tamarisk Coalition has begun work with the state of Kansas to develop a 10-year plan for controlling
tamarisk. Of significant note to Colorado is the clear recognition by Kansas that the two states have to
work together to solve this problem.

As time allows, Board staff continues to cooperate on a limited basis with local entities trying to put
together watershed based plans to control tamarisk, such as a group now active in the Purgatoire Basin.
The Tamarisk Coalition will start to use the $52,000 Construction Fund grant to this summer to begin
mapping tamarisk infestations in the Yampa, Purgatoire; and mainstem of the Colorado River for
inventory and monitoring purposes.

CWC Summer Convention: The Colorado Water Congress 2005 Sununer Convention will be held at
the Steamboat Sheridan on Aug. 25 and 26. For more information visit www.cowatercongress.org. ,

.

.

.

16