Laserfiche WebLink
The npstream 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 irrigation 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 t}te 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. Lvnne Bixler, Water Commissioner, reinforced our agency's <br />position that much of the topics of the concerns are actually vt the realm of water law or are civil matters. <br />First, regarding the activities of United Companies, the opinion of DWR statTwas that United Companies, as a <br />water user and member of the ditch association, was within their rights w repair the headgate since the !aw allows <br />the entry onto lands upstream to perform activities necessary to ensure delivery to their lands. If 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. Tf their ditch and their water aze somehow to be separate and <br />distinct from that of the other downstream users, this also fatls into the rc;alm of water law and civil matters. <br />The conclusion to this is that this agency found that a problem existed with United Companies using art irrigation <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 w be furrctianal, and incompliance with our <br />requirements. The present configuration will be temporary, with the siphon to be installed {according to the <br />spuificatiow of the originally-approved plan} in a fesv years. <br />This agency does not measure water flow, nor design water conveyance or storage structures, nor practice water <br />taw, nor dictate what actions an individual water user or ditch associatiad must perform, when the situation is <br />clearly a civil matter. T}re limits of this agency's jurisdiction are clear, and we cannot exceed tftem in our <br />requirements or reviews. Our decisions are made on an operator's compliartee with our regulations, and end there. <br />The plan proposed by United Companies appears adequate, ut that it meets our requirements far 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 dterefore bun approved by this agency. <br />t reconmtend that you contact your ditch company for questions about the ditch system structures artd delivery. [ <br />also suggest you contact the Division of Water Resources' Montrose office at 249-b622 far additional information. <br />if you have questions or comments, 1 may be reached at the Division's Durango field ofFrce: 701 Camino del Ria, <br />Room 125, Durango, CO 8 i 30 t; te! 970!247-S 193 ar fax 970124 7-5 1 0x. <br />5incsrely, <br />~~~ ~~ <br />Bob Oswald <br />Environmental Protection Specialist <br />ce: Richard Johnson, United Companies of Mesa County, Grand Junction <br />Prank Kugel, Colorado Division of Water Resources, P.O. Box 456, Montrose, CO 81402 <br />a.'~colona chaptxWrco <br />