PERMFILE66816

• Permit No: M1979191
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 3/13/1980
• Doc Name: Water Rights
• From: MLR
• To: FISCHER BROWN HUDDLESTON & GUNN
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

HDa III IIIIIIIIIIIII III DO ec CES•AMM. Gnv r.rnnr
AIL~'ED L_-~ND RECI~a~1A'TION
723 Centennial Building, 1313 Sherman Street
Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel. [phone]
Hamlet J. Barry, II I,
Director
March 13, 1980
Mr. Bill Brown
Fischer, Brown, Buddleston & Gunn
First National Tower, 11th Floor
P. 0. Drawer "J"
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
Dear Bi11:
Jim McArdle, of my staff, has referred your Letter of March 10, 1980
concerning water problems in gravel pits, to me. As you know from
previous correspondence, the problems of evaporation from gravel pits,
and questions of augmentation and "hydrologic balance", under state law,
are difficult. I do not believe that any of the respective state
agencies haatadequately dealt with the problem.
Having had several long conversations with Jerry Danielson on this subject,
it is clear to me that the state engineer does not believe that he has
any authority to deal with evaporation from gravel pits, unless there is
a diversion into the pit, or unless there is a beneficial use being made
of the water. It is my understanding that simple evaporation of water
from a gravel pit lake, with nothing more, is probably not a beneficial
use under Colorado Water Law.
Therefore, the State Engineer does not believe he has an adequate legal
basis to deal with the problem under his existing statutory authority.
On the other hand, the Mined Land Reclamation Board, which hears applications
for permits for gravel mines, has generally taken the position that
protection of water rights is the exclusive domain of the State Engineer,
and that they should not get involved in water right protection matters.
As a result, and in my personal opinion, this has left those persons who
are affected by evaporation from a gravel pit lake, without adequate
avenues of redress. I believe the problem is somewhat similar to those who
are affected by the so called "exempt" wells.
In any event, Z would suggest that you attack the problem on a couple of
different fronts. First, meet with the Three Bells applicants and see if
you can agree on submission of an augmentation plan by them. This approach
was successful with the southeastern district and a gravel mine in
Fountain, Colorado. You might point out to the applicant, that although
the State Engineer has no direct enforcement action, your agrieved water
users may have various avenues open to them.
(cont'd)