Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Consent Agenda Item 2 <br />~eptember 2003 Board Meeting <br />Rage 3 of 4 . <br /> <br />eIp.easured during the years 1969 through 1994 at the "above Aspen" gage. Initial flows for Snowmass <br />Creek were derived from these Maroon Creek records based on the ratio of watershed areas for the two <br />4rainages. Then the Snowmass Creek flows were adjusted to account for stream depletions from about 20 <br /><Vtches in the basin located above the Capital Creek confluence. The results of this analysis indicate that <br />t)1e instream flows for Snowmass were generally fully satisfied. However, it is believed that flows in the <br />1flte summer and fall could drop below the CWCB instream flow levels, particularly in dry years. <br />~ased on these studies, it was determined that the best use of the donated right, from the standpoint of the <br /><;:WCB instre<im flows, is to continue to use the right for irrigation using a slightly modified operation. <br />:Ouring times when the CWCB rights are satisfied, the donated right could be used to continue to irrigate <br />the historical lands. This creates lagged return flows that benefit stream flows in both the Roaring Fork <br />~d Snowmass Creek basins in later months. Staff has requested that should TCF decide to sell or lease <br />tp the current owner/irrigator of the ranch, it consider including a condition that the right would not be <br />Qiverted at times when the CWCB's instream flows on Snowmass Creek are not satisfied. This could be <br />4etermined from gage readings that the CWCB could install on Snowmass Creek. The historical irrigated <br />land is contained in a conservation easement that is conducive to these proposed operations. However, <br />rCF has not fully endorsed this request. <br /> <br />'l'he importance of using the donated water right for continued irrigation of the historic land instead of <br />qhanging it to instream flow use would gain significance when taking into consideration the protection of <br />oxisting uses under the Green Mountain Reservoir agreement that provides augmentation from the so- <br />~alled "Historic Users Pool" (HUP). According to the Division of Water Resources staff in the Division <br />e~ Office, the use of the donated water right for irrigation purposes is protected for much of the time under <br />the HUP. However, changing the same water for a new use will not have the HUP protection, thus the <br />right would be called out by downstream senior calls, or absent of diversion at the Snowmass Divide <br />lDitch, the water may be diverted by an upstream right that may be junior to the donated right but senior <br />tp the ISF water right. In addition, to change the donated right to ISF use, the CWCB will likely be <br />r~quired to provide replacement water to augment the historic return flows. <br /> <br />I <br />1 <br /> <br />1he following episode illustrates the HUP concept. In the 2003 irrigation season, the donated right was <br />aut of priority effective June 27, when the Grand Valley Irrigation Company (GVIC) call for 119 cfs was <br />placed. Had the donated water right been changed to ISF use, the right would have been called out to <br />satisfy the downstream demand. Although from a practical standpoint the water would still remain in the <br />stream that could benefit the ISF rights, there is a potential that an upstream or downstream user that has <br />tp.e HUP protection would divert the same water. In addition, the CWCB has lost the opportunity to <br />qenefit from irrigation return flows during fall and winter, when streamflows could be less than the ISF <br />\fater rights. <br /> <br />q:onclusion and Recommendation <br /> <br />~ecause the CWCB does not have the ability to use the right for continued irrigation, Staff recommends <br />t~at the Board accept The Conservation Fund's proposal to withdraw its donation and authorize the <br />q:WCB Director to sign the attached agreement. Staff hopes that TCF would enter into an agreement <br />with the current property owner of the' historic ranch to use the subject water for irrigation, except when <br />e tJ1e ISF water rights are not satisfied. Staff believes that this is the most effective use of the donated <br />water right, whereby the CWCB's instream flow rights on Snowmass Creek would benefit from the <br />forego diversion during shortages, and the Roaring Fork River ISFs would benefit from the continued <br />~ccretion of irrigation return flows. <br />Flood Protection. Water Project Planning and Financing. Stream and Lake Protection <br />Water Supply Protection. Conservation Planning <br />