2011-06-21_APPLICATION CORRESPONDENCE - C2010088

Home Browse Search

Corey Heaps CAM Colorado LLC June 21, 2011 Page 13 Division Response: In the submittal dated April 11, 2011, CAM responded that the adjacent gravel quarry should not be a problem since it is SO feet higher in elevation than the river and is dry. CAM also responded that the water monitoring sampler will note if the Grand Valley Canal is flowing. This may still be a problem since noting the flow does not eliminate the problem of contaminating the river sample with irrigation water. Please consider moving the river sampling station upstream of the canal or show that the contribution of canal water to the river will not measurably contaminate the sample. 20. There was a water court application submitted by Tavistock Partners LLC to the District Court, Water Division 5 on November 19, 2009 that proposes water diversions for use in the same area as the proposed Fruita Loadout. An amended application was submitted by CAM - Colorado, LLC in September 2010. After reviewing this application it appears that CAM is proposing to divert water for industrial uses on the Fruita Loadout site from both Loma Drain and Reed Wash. This application is still in review with the Division 5 water court. There is no discussion of these diversions in the current application. Please update all appropriate sections of the PAP with this pertinent information including the water rights discussion in Section 2.04.7. This item refers to the last comment in Item 7 above. If construction operations (or any other mining/industrial operations) might impede the flow of water in a stream system CAM should contact the water commissioner to make sure they are not preventing water from reaching downstream diversions. Also, if CAM diverts out of priority they will be subject to administration by the Division of Water Resources. The operation's location makes it unlikely that diversions direct from the Colorado River will be out of priority, but it is a possibility in future years and it is a possibility on Reed Wash and Loma Drain. The local water commissioner contact information is provided in the SEO letter provided in Attachment 2. Please address these concerns and provide a substantive response. CAM Response: The application your question refers to is Case No. 09CW 166, Water Division 5. The application was originally filed by Tavistock Partners LLC in November 2009, but was defective and the court refused to publish it. During CAM's acquisition of the Tavistock properties, their attorney's corrected the defects and filed an amended application during September 2010. It was published by the court, and no opposition was filed. The application claims the right to divert from both Loma Drain and Reed Wash for industrial and other uses, as listed in the application. Tavistock retains a 50% interest in the water rights for its own uses, but CAM is responsible for the application. Please see revised pages 2.04 -26 & 27 and Map -1 S. Division Response: Response accepted.