DWR_3539567 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Mitchell and Ms. Ris December 14, 2018 Page 5 of 9  Identification of and permission to use structures involved in the CS -U Pilot Project will be critical to prevent injury. For example, if Applicants’ plan for return flow replacement requires use of a specific augmentation station to prevent injury but Applicants lack the legal right to use the structure, then the pilot project would likely cause injury. If Applicants do not identify the water rights, irrigated acreage and structures with specificity in their application, they will be unable to satisfy a number additional requirements under the Criteria, including providing: the source of water that will be used to meet return flow obligations (Criteria § II.G.1.e) and how and where necessary replacement water will be delivered to the appropriate stream locations (id. § II.G.2.a.v.3.a). At the application stage, the Criteria’s detailed list of requirements amount to the need for a specific plan and intent regarding how the CS-U Pilot Project will operate. Id. § II.G. In summary, the CWCB should require Applicants to identify specific lands, water rights, structures and owners at the application stage and limit the lands, water rights, and included structures to those specifically identified and supported by contracts. The Criteria permit the CWCB to extend the application deadline to more than 60 days after selection, and Tri -State would support a moderate (30 to 60 day) extension to allow the Applicants to comply with this condition. See Criteria at 10 (§ II.F). B. Identification of Firm Supply for Return Flow Replacement Obligations. Maintenance of historical return flows is a critical element of a successful pilot project. Other water rights owners, including Tri-State, depend on historical return flows to make up a portion of their supply. Therefore, maintaining the historical return flow pattern while rotationally or intermittently fallowing lands is a critical step in preventing injury to other water rights. The CWCB Criteria require Applicants to identify, at the selection stage, “the source of water that will be used to meet return flow obligations” and “how and where any necessary replacement water will be delivered to the appropriate stream location(s).” Criteria § II.F.1.c–d. The Proposal does not meet this requirement. The Proposal states that tailwater return flows will be “released back to the river through augmentation stations as the water is being delivered.” Proposal at 5. However, there is no current plan for maintaining deep percolation return flows, and the Proposal sets out multiple options:  “Delayed return flows could be met via the exchange conducted with CS -U . . . .” Proposal at 5. However, the current Super Ditch contract with CS -U does not provide for CS-U to deliver any water to maintain historical return flows, so a new contract will be required for this operation. In addition, effluent from Colorado Springs often includes transmountain water that may not be included in a pilot project.