WSP04894 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4~uthe~~t ,dj,strla '0 fight Hunter ruling by John Sabella Omcini.5ofthe&uL'1en~t V.....aler Conservancy Di3trict wiH trBv~1 to Washington July 18 for a meet- ing with Guy Martin, as~i'Jta.nt secretary of the interior. to con. tes~ lost week's rujing hy an In- terIor' Department solicitor that rE$tricts water diversions from two Hunter Creek tributaries, Southeast District spokesman Tommy Thompsn said he was "shocked" at Solicitor Leo K1utitz's ruling that would limit divemion from Midway and No Name creeks to 3,000 acre-f""t per year, Thompoon said the ruI- mg waa filled with "glaring er- rors," and that the water de- velopment agency hope. for a dif- ferent interpretation of the Fryingpan-Ark3IlSaa project au- UlOrIzmglegJ8lation from Martin, Thompson would not comment on what the district board ofdirec- tors might do should Martin up- hold Krulitz's action, but he said that the district feels it has the nght to expand diversions -from Hunter Creek itself if the 3000 acre-foot limit for the two tributaries remains in effect. The district board meets July 20 in Pueblo, Pitkin County officials, who have engaged in a bitter confron- tation with the Eaatern Slope water district over the Hunter Creek portion of Fry-Ark, haile<l the Kruhtz ruhng aa a m'lior and !",expected victory for the county In Its efTort to limit the size of the Hunter Creek diversion, 3,000 Acre-Feet , The ruling stated that accord- mg to the authorizing legislation passed by Congress and the operating principles that govern Fry-Ark, Midway and No Name can be divsrted to a. maximum of 3,000 acre-feet per year, and the water must be used for the pur- pose of an exchange with theT\'V!n Lakes Canal Company, ' Twin Lakes, which operates a diversion at the headwaters of the Roaring Fork, would then refrain from diverting 3,000 acre-feet from the Hoating Fork to enhance Ule environment in and around that stream, The Southeaat District, which has an entitlement for an annual .~ average of 69,200 acre-feet or W~1.t(';r from lni;> enLir.:! f\.........',' . project. lub.1. ?.ropoocd to divert a total of 16.800 acre. feet s.nnu::1l1y irom the .o-called Suuthside Cel- ll:!'ction Syelem. comprised of Hunl..r Creek and its tributarioo, To achieve the 16,800 acre-foot figure. diversions of 6,500 acre. f""t from Hunter Creek, 6,500 acre.feet from Midway Creek and S,800 acre~feet from No Name Creek had been planned by the Bureau of Reclamation, wh ich is in charge of construction and op- eration of the project. Additional Legislation Krulitt ruled that it would re- quire additional Congressional authorizing legislation to divert more than 3,000 acre-feet annu- ally from the two tributaries, Thompson characterized that action aa merely a "legal opinion: and not a rmal ruling by the In, lerior Department, Pitkin Cou"ty Commission Chairman Bob Child, however, dalCribed the ruling as approp- riate and 8 major victory fO!" the county in its effort to preserve the Hunter Creek environment by limiting the size of the proposed diversion. The county and the district had Ix>en negotiating over minimum flow decrees for Hunter Creek, negotiations that were mediated by the Colorado Water Conserva- tion Board (C','1B), The Krulitz ruling leaves thOll8 negotiations in doubt, however. While Child speculated that the county's bargaining position would be significantly strengthened in the negotiations, Thompson insinuated that tbe district had been negotiating in good faith but had been "kicked in the shins" and might no longer be willing to give up an additional .even cubic feot por second lCFSl of water to !Ileet Hunter Creek's minimum stream now require- ment. After fish and wildlife au- tborities studied the Hunter Creek environment earlier this year. the estimates of the minimum flows na::essary to pre- serve that environment were upped from 14 to 21 cf., A spokesman from the Wash ington office of Fourth Dis- trict Congr....man James John- son, Dill Clearly, said that John- 90n has not yet issued. a statement on the Krulitz ruI ing and that it is too early to speculate on what the Congressional reaction might be to a request for additional au- thorizing legislation, Dlatant Falnration Pitkin COU!lty officials char~ed the hllreau WIth having blatant!;.- fabricated thefrrst minimum now figure in an effort to reduce the already negative benefit-cost ratio of thE:' diversion project. The county filed suit against the project on a variety of grounds, aM in an efTort to settle the litigation out of court, the CWB had been attempting to per- suade the county to drop its law suits if the district would agree to the 21 cfs minimum flow stan- dard, Those negotiations are now im- periled, which haa provoked a split among Pitkin County offi- cials, aome of whom regard the Kru Iilz ruI ing os having super- ceded the negotistions in impor- tance, and others who feel that the negotiatiolL'~ still represent the county's best hope for minimizing the~l~oc~ofthewa~ diversions in the Hunter Creek drainage, Bureau public information specialist Clark Germann said the Krulil:l ruling raises several alternative .....pons..., The rU'St would be to accept the ruling and divert less water, a step the disuict would be certain to contest either in court or in COligr..., . New Studies The second would be to do new hydrologic studies on the streams in the Fry-Ark project tD Bee if ad- ditional w,ter could be diverted from other portions of the projecL The third would be tD construct two add~tional diveJ"8ions in the Hunter drainage at Lime and Las t Chance creeks, These two d i- \'ersiong were authorized by Con- g{e5S but were not built because of what was earlier \,jewed ll.9 mar. ginal economic benefit, according to Germann, , The fourth al ternati ve would be tD seek "clarification" of the exist- ing authorizing legislation, which contain.9 numerous ambiguities, or tD seek additional legislation, he said. Asaf1l\haltcmative,Uer:nann , admitted thot enlarging the di- versions from Hunter Creek itself is "a possibility." .