Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br /> <br />d. Hindrv No.7. ThU priority has an appropriation for 7.21 cfs and it is assumed that all of <br />this water can be diverted whenever in priority. A small portion of this water right is owned <br />by the Colorado Water Conservation Board.. <br /> <br />e. The Lewis and Strouse Priori", No. 13. The 100 inches belonging to Morrison will be <br />'admii1istered in accordance with the terms and conditions of Case No. 82CW425. For the <br />remaining 100 inches it is assumed that there would be no monthly or annual volumetric limits <br />or ditch losses imposed. However, the allowable diversions would be calculated by multiplying <br />the amount in priority by the depletion factors used in Case No. 82CW425. <br /> <br />f. The Robert Lewis Priority No. 19. For the purpose of running the ModeJ. it was assumed <br />that 200 cfs could be diverted by Priority No. 19 without limitation whenever in priority. The <br />decree signed by the Referee on October 25,1988 was more generous for the 179.525 inches <br />transferred by the Mt. Carbon Metropolitan District. Without doing any precise analysis. <br />approximately twice as much, or 4.8 cfs should have been assumed for the month of June and <br />lesser amounts for other months to be consistent with case No. 84CW22I. This would reduce <br />the amount that could be diverted by the State's storage rights in Bear Creek Lake. That may <br />be counter-ba1anced by being too generous in projecting diversions for other non-transferred <br />water rights. <br /> <br />'~ <br /> <br />SOUTH PlATTE RIVER C\U.S <br />Whether or not the excess water, physically available in Bear Creek, can be stored in Bear Creek <br />Reservoir depends on the downstream South Plane River calls which are senior to the CWCB's <br />storage rights. Call records are available at the Division Engineer's office for the 1949-1957 period, <br />which are summarized in Appendix B. The question arises whether or not the river calls would be <br />similar in a repeat of this 9-year period. <br /> <br />Cenainly, there have been tranSlDountain diversions that increase the physical water available to some <br />of the ditches, which could change the calling appropriation. Two Forks Reservoir, if and when <br />constructed, could cause additional rebound calls that would affect the legal availability of water to <br />CWCB's storage rights in Bear Creek. Also, Denver can be cpected to exercise exchanges from the <br />Metro/Denver wastewater plant to Strontia Springs that could tighten up the administration in the <br />Upper South Plane River reach. The constrUCtion of the Narrows Dam would decrease the storable <br />floWs of the CWCB storage rights. <br /> <br />-~", <br /> <br />Because of the uncertainties of future developments regarding the constrUction of either the Two <br />Forks Dam or the Narrows Dam, it is assumed that the South Plane calls will remain the same as they <br />were during the 1949-1957 period for the purpose of quantifying the storable flows of the CWCB water <br />rights. <br /> <br />llMZ6.IlClW <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />1 <br />I" <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />I <br />1 <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />