Laserfiche WebLink
The upstream headgate is outside the operator's permitted area boundary, and changes made to it are beyond the <br />jurisdiction of this office. Likewise, the delivery of imgation water via certain routes or in certain amounts are <br />beyond the scope of our regulations. Our involvement in the review of the proposed revision to the irrigation ditch <br />plan is limited to a determination that conveyance of water to downstream users is ensured, and that the structure is <br />stable. <br />This office contacted the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR), at their Water Division 4 office in <br />Montrose to determine what jurisdiction we had in the other aspects of your complaint. The discussion with Mr. <br />Frank Kugel, Assitant Division Engineer, and Ms. Lynne Bixler, Water Commissioner, reinforced our agency's <br />position that much of the topics of the concerns are actually in the realm of water law or aze civil matters. <br />First, regarding the activities of United Companies, the opinion of DWR staff was that United Companies, as a <br />water user and member of the ditch association, was within their rights to repair the headgate since the law allows <br />the entry onto lands upstream to perform activities necessary to eruure delivery to their lands. [f injury to property <br />is involved, that is a civil matter to be decided in court. Ditch association members are allowed to move the <br />location of a ditch they utilize on lands they control. If their ditch and their water are somehow to be separate and <br />distinct from that of the other downstream users, this also falls into the realm of water law and civil matters. <br />The conclusion to this is that this agency found that a problem existed with United Companies using an imgation <br />ditch configuration which was different than the one approved in their 1994 plan. The remedy they have proposed <br />is an alternative to implement for the short-term, which appears to be functional, and in compliance with our <br />requirements. The present configuration will be temporary, with the siphon to be installed (according to the <br />specifications of the originally-approved plan) in a few years. <br />This agency does not measure water flow, nor design water conveyance or storage structures, nor practice water <br />law, nor dictate what actions an individual water user or ditch association must perform, when the situation is <br />clearly a civil matter. Observations of yours of United's past actions were not timely reported, and cannot be <br />substantiated now. Also, this office cannot base its decisions on a perceived conflict of interest between parties. <br />The plan proposed by United Companies appears adequate, th that it meets our requirements for ensuring a <br />continued delivery of irrigation water from the Ouray Ditch, presently through a structure which now exists, and <br />ultimately through a siphon structure which has been approved for that use in the future. The proposal, formally <br />referred to as "Technical Revision TR-02" of this permit, has been approved by this agency. <br />I recommend that you contact your ditch company for questions about the ditch system structures and delivery. I <br />also suggest you contact the Division of Water Resources' Montrose office at 249-6622 for additional information. <br />[f you have questions or comments, I may be reached at the Division's Durango field office: 70 L Camino del Rio, <br />Room 125, Durango, CO 81301; tel 970/247-5193 or fax 970/247-5104. <br />Sincerely, <br />~~~ ~~,~ <br />Bob Oswald <br />Environmental Protection Specialist <br />cc: Richard Johnson, United Companies of Mesa County, Grand Junction <br />Frank Kugel, Colorado Division of Water Resources, P.O. Box 456, Montrose, CO 81402 <br />a:\colona richardson/rco <br />