Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 10/18/1985 (4)MINUTES Joint Meeting of Water Board and Natural Resources Board October 18, 1985 Water Board Members Present Norm Evans, JimO'Brien, Tom Moore, MaryLou Smith, Bill Elliott, Neil Grigg, John Scott (alt.), Stan Ponce (alt.) Natural Resources Board Members Present Suzanne Bassinger, Pat Sousa, Bob Sanz, Gilbert Fechner, Scott Duncan, Ari Michelsen, Tim Johnson Water Board Staff Mike SMith, Dennis Bode, Jim Hibbard, Curt Miller, Ben Alexander, Andy Pineda, Linda Burger, Don Goeddert, Paul Eckman, Assistant City Attorney Natural Resources Staff Roger Krempel, Andrea LaPointe, Edith Felchle Guests aian ieerriman, Colorado Water Conservation Board, Steve Putman and Steve Bowman, Colorado Division of Wildlife Norman Evans, Water Board Chairman, opened the meeting and welcomed the Natural Resources Board and their staff and the guests from the Water Conservation Board and the Division of Wildlife. Roger Krempel explained that the Water Board and the Natural Resources Board were meeting at the request of the City Council to try to reach a consensus on the Cache La Poudre instream flow recommendations. He also reviewed the legislative background with regard to the instream flows. Dan Merriman from the Colorado Water Conservation, Board began his presentation by giving some background on his Board since it administers the instream flow program. With the use of slides he explained the history and background of the instream flow program, which was initiated in 1973 with the passage of SB97. The legislation was developed because the lawmakers of the state felt there was a need to balance the consumptive water resource development with some preservation of the natural environment. When streams are totally appropriated, the result at times is dry stream channels which will not support a wildlife habitat, particularly a fishery. When the legislature enacted S897, they wanted to develop a program within the State's water rights system for the State to acquire water rights for the preservation of the natural environment. One of the major obstacles was the definition of beneficial use. The statutes required that water be diverted from the stream channel and put to beneficial use in order to appropriate water. SB97 changed that language to read: "Beneficial use shall include the impoundment of water for recreational use including fishing and wildlife." It also indicated that diversion was no longer necessary. To make an appropriation, all that was necessary was to apply the water to beneficial use which allowed water to be kept in the stream for instream flow purposes to preserve the natural environment to a reasonable degree. The State delegated the instream flow and natural lake level program to the Conservation Board. Later the 1973 law was challenged but the Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality in 1979. When the water users expressed concern about protection of their water rights, S3414 was enacted in 1981 and stated that, prior to initiating a water rights filing, the Board shall determine that there is a natural environment that can be preserved to a reasonable degree; that any appropriation the Board would make would be subject to present uses or exchanges of water by other water users. This gave extra protection to water rights -- saying basically, that the instream flows would be junior to all existing water rights and practices on the rivers. Next, Steve Putman, the State's coordinator for the Division of Wildlife for the Instream flow Program, explained how the Division developer the recommendations which are presented to the Water Conservation Board for their consideration. They are not just "pulled out of the air," he said. He explained in detail how they arrive at what is needed for minimum flow with regard to protection of the fish population in the stream. Site selection in the stream is very important relative to fish habitat. He said that they try to come up with minimum stream flows that meet all of the following criteria or at least two of them: (1) A mean depth for streams less than 20 feet wide of 2/10 of a foot, and for streams wider than 20 feet, they want the depth to be 1/100 times the width. (2) A wetted channel perimeter of 50% of the bank full perimeter. (3) A velocity of 1 foot per second. This program is standardized to calculate these figures. He then showed the 7 cross sections which were done to determine the values to maintain the instream flows that are important to maintain a fishery in the Poudre River. Their recommended data then goes back to the Water Conservation Board for review. Dan Merriman than explained in detail the review procedures for the Division of Wildlife recommendations and notification for and receiving of public comment. After this process, the Board can table, modify or approve the recommendations. Once they are approved, that establishes the appropriation date. The Poudre recommendations will be considered on November 7 and 8. The Board takes approximately 5 days to process the recommendations and get them to the Attorney General's office for the Water Court process. There is a public notice period of 60 days when they are published in the water resumes. Any water user would have an opportunity to object to the instream flow filing. The objection has to be resolved by the Board or the Court is allowed to make a decision. Mr. Merriman showed where the program stands at this time. He indicated the various Division of Wildlife regions on a slide. They now have filed on approximately 1,000 stream segments throughout the State. The average stream flow appropriations were listed on the slide for these segments. There are filings on approximately 6,000 miles of streams. Natural filing on lakes approaches 600. -2- 0 • Mr. Merriman stressed, after some concerns were expressed, that the water for instream flow is never used consumptively; that water from storage would not be required to meet minimum flows; that these flows are junior to existing rights, and that the water will always be there for downstream users. He also explained how the instream flow rights are protected. The Board reviews, on a monthly basis, the changes in water rights and all the new water rights that occur in the 7 water divisions. They review those and if there are changes occurring that would impact the instream floes, they would file a statement of opposition and work, with that applicant to try to resolve the impact to the instream flow. Norm Evans, Chairman of the Water Board, explained how the Water Board arrived at their recommendation to the City Council, by a vote of 6-3, to request that the Water Conservation Board delay action on the instream flow recommendation pending the completion of the Poudre Basin study. He also went into the historic Water Board philosophy and the Board's major charge to ensure that the City of Fort Collins has an adequate water supply. The Vice Chairman of the Natural Resources Board, Bob Sanz, described their Board's action and position. They voted 9-0 with one abstention, to approve the instream flow recommendations. After additional discussion about the effects of the instream flows, Water Board member Jim O'Brien moved that the Water Baord recommend support for the recommended instream flows. Marylou Smith provided a second. Tom Moore abstained. The motion passed. Thus, a join recommendation from the Natural Resources Board and the Water Board to the City Counci will be to recommend approval of the Cache La Poudre Insteam Flow recommendations being considered by the Colorado Water Conservation Board. Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned a 5:45 p.m. ,/ water oar ecre a— ry -3-