WSP00576

• File Number: 8449.900
• Description: Bear Creek
• State: CO
• Basin: South Platte
• Date: 1/1/1991
• Author: Batchley Assoc.
• Title: Bear Creek Operational Study - Vol. 2 - Appendices Part I
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Publication

I
f'--'. ~
I
I
I.
I
I
..
-~
7'~1
.
.
..
I
I
I
I
1\
I
I

There are significant amounts of water that have not been transferred out of several of the
. Bear Oeelt diu:bes. The precise eventual fate of these water rights is not known at this time.
Some of the rights will continue to be used for irrigation while other water rights are likely to
be tranSferred either upstream and/or downstream for municipal or other uses. To be able
to run the Model., some reasonable assumptions are C!-.~ry. Those made for the Model are
. as follows:

L Hodeson Ditch. Priority No.9 is assumed to be abandoned. Priority No.3 has the first
caD on the available water after the Simonton Ditch Priority No.2 whether this water right is
transferred upstream or is diverted at its present headgate. Based upon the records, 3.92 c:fs
of Priority No.3 is either diverted by the ditch or has not been transferred to other points of
diversion in Water Court.

b. Warrior Ditch. At the time the Model was prepared, it was estimated that a total of 127
shares out of 160 shares remained in the ditch, some of which constitutes the 20 percent ditch
losses left in the ditch by other entities that had water transierred out of the ditch. It is
assumed that 63.5 shares would remain in the ditch for irrigation, and that the other 63.5
shares would be used by Denver and other quasi-municipal uses. The terms and conditions
for the latter 63.5 shares would be similar to those imposed in Case No. 8lCWl04 which
involved 14 shares of the Warrior Ditch transferred by the Bear Creek Development
Corporation. The monthly volumetric limits could be as follows: .. ,

April 158 aae feet
May 340 . .
June 386 . .
July 386 . .
August 386 . .
September 318 . .
October 250 . .

c. Pioneer Union Ditch. For the Pioneer Union Ditch, at the time that the Model was
)-
prepared, it was calculated that 54 shares oW' of a total of 80 shares remained in the ditch. For
the purpose of this Model run it is assumed that the terms and conditions for any transferred
water would be similar the Case No. W-8120-76 whereby 10 shares were transferred by the
Bear Oeek Development Corporatioti~This limited the annual diversions of Priority Nos. 11
and 15 to 100 acre feet/year. For the 54 shares, the annual diversion limit would be 540 acre
feet.

--

5