Laserfiche WebLink
<br />\Jon. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />........ <br /> <br />historically been thirty-two percent '(32%-)" and <br />furthermore finds that only twenty-five percent (25%) of <br />water diverted for municipal uses by the Florence-Coal <br />Creek-Williamsburg system will be consumptively used. <br />For this reason, when water is diverted for municipal <br />uses at the New Florence Treatment Plan Diversion Works, <br />there is a net benefit to the Arkansas River of seven <br />percent (7%-) of the water 50 diverted. Applicants may <br />take credit for that amount of water for use in <br />augmenting the water rights applied for in this Court in <br />Cases 80CW91 and 80CW92.(Findings 113.) <br /> <br />(e) <br /> <br />Case 80CW91 adjudicated a direct flow water r:!,ght for <br />.municipal purposes. The, court finds that, the consumptive <br />uSe of water for municipal purposes under Case 80CW91 is <br />.the same as above described, to wit: twent'y-fivepercent <br />(25%) . Therefore, Applicants may divert under their <br />water right inCase 80CW9l at a rate of 4.0 times the <br />amount of augmentation water available. For example, if <br />Florence is diverting 4.0 cfs for municipal purposes <br />under its' Union Ditch right one must first subtract <br />2.0 cfs and then apply a credit of seven percent (7%) of <br />the net amount,' or 0.14 cfs, 'available for augmentation <br />purposes, and may then divert 4.0 times that quantity, or <br />0.56cfs, under its Case 80CW91 water right. The first <br />2.0 cfs of water diverted by Florence under its Union <br />Ditch shares may not be applied to the plan. for <br />augmentation, because h:!'storically this amount has not <br />been available to the Union Ditch when not used by the <br />City. (Findings iI3.a.) <br /> <br />(d) <br /> <br />Case BOCW92 adjudicated the right to store water for <br />municipal purposes. "The court finds that the intent of <br />the Applicants is, to provide long term' storage in an <br />'offstream reservoir and that it is difficult to predict <br />how much water so stored will ever return to the stream <br />system, because evaporation will take place over long <br />periods. Therefore, SUbject to petition 'for <br />modifications by any party hereto within 10 years after <br />completion of reservoir, the Court finds the consumptive <br />use of water diverted from the Arkansas River under the <br />Case' 80CW92 water right would be one hundred percent <br />(100%) . Therefore, under the preceding example, if <br />Florence chooses to devote its entire augmentation water <br />credit to Case aOCW92, it, may divert water from the <br />Arkansas River for storage at a rate of 0.12 cfs." <br />(Findings 'll13. b . I <br /> <br />(e) <br /> <br />When Applicants are diverting water 'under their Union <br /> <br />4 <br />