Turner, Jason

English

University of Denver

Water Law Review Volume 6 Issue 1 Article 79 9-1-2002 Application for Change of Water Rights and for Approval of Plan for Augmentation, Including Exchange Jason Turner Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/wlr Custom Citation Jason Turner, Water Rights Application, Application for Change of Water Rights and for Approval of Plan for Augmentation, Including Exchange, 6 U. Denv. Water L. Rev. 265 (2002). This Colorado Water Rights Appplication is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Denver Sturm College of Law at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Water Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact jennifer.cox@du.edu,dig-commons@du.edu. COLORADO WATER RIGHTS APPLICATIONSDue to applicant's assertion of diligence, Telluride and MountainVillage request a decree finding a their conditional rights are absolutein the Alternate Reservoirs and the Elk Pond Well in the amount ofeleven acre feet and 2.91 acre feet respectively.2. OppositionNo statements of opposition have been filed.Kiowa K. EngwisWATER COURT DIVISION 5APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF WATER RIGHTS AND FOR APPROVAL OFPLAN FOR AUGMENTATION, INCLUDING EXCHANGE. Case No.02CW077 (Water Division 5, Mar. 2002). Applicant: Basalt WaterConservancy District (Atty. LoriJ.M. Satterfield, Balcomb & GreenP.C.).1. ApplicationThe Basalt Water Conservancy District ("BWCD") seeks a changein water rights to allow contractees to operate court authorizedalternate points of diversion on the BWCD's Basalt Conduit and theLandis Canal water rights. These alternate points of diversion will bewells, surface rights, and storage reservoirs utilized for evaporationreplacement only, within Area A and areas which would be designatedArea A by definition. Area A is generally described as those mainstemareas of the Frying Pan and Roaring Fork Rivers, where there are nointervening calling water rights present between the point of diversionand the mainstem, making it possible for those points of diversion tobe augmented year-round by the BWCD's augmentation rights.The BWCD proposes the following terms and conditions for therequested change to prevent injury to the water rights of others:(1) the state engineer or court will approve the alternate points ofdiversion, in accordance with implementation procedures;(2) alternate points of diversion will be located in Area A, or thoseareas that would qualify for diversion under this augmentation plan;(3) those alternate points of diversion, located in the Roaring ForkRiver drainage upstream of the confluence of the Frying Pan andRoaring Fork Rivers, will be operated and administered under theBWCD's right of exchange for the Basalt Conduit; (4) alternate pointsof diversion at wells will require a permit from the State Engineerpursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes section 37-90-137(2); and(5) each well user will be required to install a totalizing flow meter as acondition of diverting at the well.Furthermore, the BWCD requests approval of a plan wherebyaugmentation and exchange would supplement these out-of-prioritydepletions. The BWCD proposes to utilize its water rights in and toIssue IWATER LAWREVIEWRobinson Ditch, Troy and Edith Ditch, Favre Domestic Pipeline, RuediReservoir, and Green Mountain Reservoir as well as future courtapproved BWCD water rights for this purpose. This plan will takeeffect when the Basalt Conduit and Landis Canal are out-of-priority.Studies conducted previously by the BWCD projected that the BasaltConduit and Landis Canal water rights would be out-of-priority frommid June through October, and anticipated that a call could also be ineffect in April. The BWCD does not anticipate any calls on the BasaltConduit and Landis Canal water rights, including the proposedalternate points of diversion, during the remainder of the year.The BWCD will calculate the depletions associated with thealternate points of diversion using engineering assumptions consistentwith the BWCD's prior augmentation plans. The BWCD will accountfor the delayed depletions of any wells according to the categoriesestablished by decree in Case No. 87CW155. The delayed depletionsare expected to vary in relation to the wells proximity to the FryingPan and Roaring Fork Rivers. The BWCD will ensure that the totalout-of-priority depletions under the proposed augmentation plan andprior decreed augmentation plans would not exceed the replacementwater available to the BWCD. Moreover, any substituted water will beof the quality and quantity required by senior appropriators.The -right of exchange will be utilized to the extent that it isnecessary to augment water replacements introduced to the riverdownstream of the authorized points of diversion under the plan. Themaximum extent of the exchange reach is from the confluence of theRoaring Fork and Colorado Rivers (downstream terminus) up to theauthorized alternate points of diversion (upstream terminus), exceptfor the exchange on the Roaring Fork River upstream of theconfluence of the Frying Pan and Roaring Fork Rivers, which will beoperated and administered under the priority and right of exchangeclaimed in pending Case No. 01CW305. The BWCD requests aNovember 9, 1998 priority date for the exchange that is outside the01CW305 exchange reach. The November 9 priority date reflects theBWCD's contract with the United States Bureau of Reclamation forGreen Mountain Reservoir releases. There is nothing intended torestrict or limit the operation of the Basalt Conduit and Landis Canalunder its original priority adjudication.The BWCD and its users will be limited to the amount of wateravailable in priority at the original points of diversion. The BWCD andits users may call on additional sources of supply only as against waterrights that are junior to the date of the subject exchange.BWCD suggests the applicant for augmentation water under theplan will submit to the BWCD an application form that will identifythis proposed plan as the source of replacement water. Upon receiptof the application, the BWCD will collect fees and submit theapplication to the state and division engineers. The BWCD will providenotice of the application in the newspaper of the county where thepoint of diversion is located. Any affected person will then be able tofile an objection or other comment with the state engineer. AnyVolume 6COLORADO WATER RIGHTS APPLICATIONSperson not satisfied by the state engineer's decision could request a denovo hearing with the water court to determine whether the plan foraugmentation has been met with respect to the request for anauthorized diversion. Diversions authorized by either an uncontestedapproval by the state engineer or an order of the court will becomepart of the decree for the augmentation plan.2. OppositionObjecting are Twin Lakes Reservoir and Canal Company ("TwinLakes"), Colorado Water Conservation Board ("CWCB"), andSoutheastern Colorado Water Conservancy District ("Southeastern").Twin Lakes seeks assurance that the proposed augmentation planwill provide augmentation water, in the amounts and at the timesneeded so as not to injure its vested and conditional water rights.CWCB objects because it has instream flow rights on the RoaringFork River, Frying Pan River, Crystal River, and Cattle Creek and feelsthat it may be adversely affected by the granting of the application.The proposed change in water rights without adequate augmentationcould jeopardize the CWCB's instream flows.Southeastern claims that BWCD has not proposed adequateassurances that its change of water rights and augmentation plans willnot cause injury. Additionally, they assert that BWCD has failed topropose adequate conditions and administrative procedures and havenot provided adequate measurement devises and accounting to assureproper administration of the change of water right and augmentationplan. Southwestern also claims the BWCD may be in violation ofColorado Revised Statutes section 32-92-302, because their procedureto implement the augmentation plan may be contrary to statutorynotification. The application fails to give sufficient detail of the rightsclaimed and the proposed uses and operations. Therefore, it lacks thespecificity required by statute.All three objectors contend the application does not containsufficient information for the objecting parties to state all potentialgrounds for objection. All three objectors reserve the right to advanceother grounds of objection when more facts are known.Jason TurnerIssue 1

Application for Change of Water Rights and for Approval of Plan for Augmentation, Including Exchange

https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2515&context=wlr

Application for Change of Water Rights and for Approval of Plan for Augmentation, Including Exchange

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Denver