BOARD02645

• Board Meeting Date: 9/22/2003
• Description: ISF Section - Snowmass Creek Donation
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

/

STATE OF COLORADO

.olorado Water Conservation Board

~epartment of Natural Resources
lS13 Sherman Street, Room 721
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
VfWw.cwcb.state.co.us

MEMORANDUM

Bill Owens
Governor

To:

Colorado Water Conservation Board

Greg E. Walcher
Executive Director

From:

Dan Merriman
Bahman Hatami

Rod Kuharich
CWCB Director

r;>ate:

September 4, 2003

Dan McAuliffe
Deputy Director

~ubject:

Consent Agenda Item 2, September 22-24, 2003 Board Meeting,
Snowmass Creek Donation

~vnopsis

eQn January 12, 1998, The Conservation Fund (TCF) and the CWCB entered into a donation agreement,
whereby TCF donated a water right from the Snowmass Divide Ditch to the CWCB in order to help
l)1aintain instream flows on Snowmass Creek. TCF sold the ranch on which the donated water right, in
qonjunction with a more senior water right, was historically used after placing a conservation easement on
the land to remain in irrigation. The donation agreement was contingent upon TCF successfully
~djudicating its conditional water right known as the Gerbaz Extension of the Snowmass Divide Ditch as an
~bsolute water right (to be used on the ranch). The donation agreement became final in August of 2000
when TCF waived the subject contingency and requested that the CWCB files an application to change
tj1e use of the donated right to instream flow use.

~ubsequently, the CWCB retained Doug Clemens of Spronk Water Engineers ("Spronk") to ail.alyze the
qonated water right. The results of the engineering analysis are summarized below. Based on this
eingineering analysis as well as taking into account water rights administration policy with respect to the
operation of the "Users Pool" in Green Mountain Reservoir, staff reached the conclusion that the most
'lffective use of the donated water right was its continued use for irrigation, at least during the times that
tjle Snowmass Creek ISF rights are met. The lagged return flows from irrigation benefit stream flows in
qoth the Roaring Fork River and Snowmass Creek basins in fall and early winter. The historically
irrigated land is under a conservation easement and as such is conducive to this proposed operation.

&ince the Board does not have the ability to use the right for continued irrigation, staff requested that
rCF to withdraw the donation and sell or lease the donated right to the current owner/irrigator or the
flllch with the condition that the right would not be exercised when the CWCB's instream flows on
e &.nowmass Creek are not being met. Following several meetings with TCF representatives, TCF agreed
tjlat merely changing the donated right to ail. instream flow water right would not be the best use of the
water right in terms of protecting stream flows. Consequently, TCF is asking that the Board re-convey

Flood Protection. Water Supply Planning and Finance. Stream and Lake Protection
Water Supply Protection. Conservation and Drought Planning