“On a stream, one cubic foot a second can make a big difference” — Amy Beatie #ColoradoRiver

July 4, 2015

From The Denver Post (Bruce Finley):

For 139 years, state enforcers have said farmers, cities and ranchers who don’t use all the water they are entitled to could have their rights curtailed. Critics have said that discourages conservation.

A first deal in the works, made possible by a 2013 law, lets a ranch owner near Granby leave water in Willow Creek, a tributary of the overtapped Colorado River, without facing penalties.

A second deal would leave more water in the Roaring Fork River, another Colorado River tributary, in Aspen.

Colorado Farm Bureau leaders said they’re watching to make sure water left in rivers by those who don’t exercise their senior rights stays available to next-in-priority irrigators.

“We’re definitely taking a wait-and-see approach,” CFB president Don Shawcroft said. “We had a certain understanding when the law was passed, but it’s certainly up to the interpretation of the court and lawyers.”

The Colorado law says not using water won’t diminish or cancel a water right if the owner is enrolled in a conservation program with local approval.

Colorado River District officials last week approved the Willow Creek deal. Water saved initially will be small, flows of a few cubic feet per second into stream channels.

But the emerging alternative to Use It Or Lose It — developed by the Colorado Water Trust — marks a milestone in modernizing the state’s first-come, first-serve system for allocating water.

“We can look at the local water rights and determine if leaving water in a particular section of a river would create environmental benefits,” said Amy Beatie, director of the trust, devoted to saving rivers.

“The benefits could be significant,” Beatie said. “On a stream, one cubic foot a second can make a big difference.”[…]

Given the water pressures in the West, Louisiana-based ranch owner Witt Caruthers this year decided to try the new approach at his head-gates along Willow Creek.

“Colorado’s water system created an incentive to use our water even in times when it’s not absolutely necessary. When you’re under that pressure to use it or lose it, you’re almost forced to abuse it. That’s to the detriment of all,” Caruthers said.

He and his partners turned to the Colorado Water Trust to take advantage of the new law. Without it, he said, “You’re caught between taking what you need and taking what you are entitled to.”

When drought nearly dried up the Roaring Fork River a few years ago in Aspen, city officials began thinking about how to ensure a minimal flow by leaving water they divert from their Wheeler Ditch to irrigate parks and feed fountains.

Yet their efforts to leave water in the river led to legal challenges by competing users, who claimed the city’s senior rights must be reduced if it stops diverting its full allotment, said Phil Overeynder, utilities engineer for special projects.

“Aspen is interested in doing this. Leaving a little water in that stream is what we are trying to accomplish,” Overeynder said.

Agricultural irrigators are wary of changing Colorado water law, said John McKenzie, director of the Ditch and Reservoir Company Alliance. Yet the system causes many to flood fields with more water than they need for fear that government will list their water as abandoned, McKenzie said.

“We want to protect ditch company water rights,” he said. “But if there’s a mechanism where a ditch company that doesn’t need the water could allow it to flow down a river, and there was no ‘abandonment’ of that water, it could help a ditch company. There are costs to diverting water.”

More SB13-019 coverage here.

Take a photo tour of Las Vegas’ new water tunnel #ColoradoRiver

July 3, 2015

From the Las Vegas Review-Journal (Henry Brean):

The business end of the Southern Nevada Water Authority’s new intake pipe at Lake Mead is a reinforced concrete vault that pokes up from the bottom of the reservoir, the last stop in a dark tunnel 3 miles long.

You can’t feel the weight of the lake 40 feet above your head, but it’s impossible not to think about it. A curved disc of stainless steel, 16 feet across and an inch and a half thick, is all that separates you from more than 3 trillion gallons of water that covers the vault to a depth of more than 300 feet.

Not to worry, says Jim Nickerson, project manager for this $817 million construction job.

“There isn’t a crane in the world that could lift that cap,” he says.

The weight of all that water is exactly what’s keeping the lid on the authority’s new intake tunnel. But that’s not the only pressure being placed on the project.

When it goes on line in September, the so-called third straw becomes a lifeline for the Las Vegas Valley, which draws 90 percent of its water supply through two existing intakes that will eventually stop working should the lake continue to shrink.

On Monday morning, the water authority led a small group on the first — and likely the last — media tour down the entire 3-mile tunnel to the intake structure, which is basically a concrete box the size of a Starbucks with walls 7 feet thick.

Soon no one will be able to make this trip.

Nickerson said all the work underground should be finished and construction equipment cleared away by August. Then workers will shut off the pumps that keep groundwater at bay, allowing the tunnel to gradually fill over two or three weeks. Once the water pressure in the tunnel equals the pressure around it, a crane floating on the surface of lake will lift the 19,000-pound stainless steel cap, allowing water to flow freely into the intake.

The big chunk of steel will go into storage, just in case they ever need to drain and inspect the tunnel.

Activity at the site has been constant since 2008, when Las Vegas Tunnel Constructors began excavating a 600-foot vertical access shaft on a peninsula at the western edge of Lake Mead. Since then, the project has been hit by a series of setbacks — and the death of one worker — that added more than two years and almost $40 million to the cost.

The work reached a major milestone in December, when the massive tunneling machine specially built for the job completed its 3-mile journey by punching into the 1,200-ton intake structure, which was built on shore and floated out onto the lake. In 2012 the 100-foot-tall intake structure was sunk into a hole blasted in the lake bed and secured with 12,000 cubic yards of special concrete pumped into place from a flotilla of cement trucks on barges.

Nickerson said that when the tunneling machine finally chewed its way into the side of the intake structure two years later, it missed its intended target by just 2 millimeters on one side and 3 millimeters on the other.

“There was a jobwide hole-through party,” he said.

The 1,500 ton, $25 million digger is now long gone. It was removed from the tunnel piece by piece over the first three months of the year, with most of it already shipped back to the factory in Germany.

More Colorado River Basin coverage here.

Southern Delivery System: Springs, Walker settle for $7.1M — The Pueblo Chieftain

July 3, 2015

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Colorado Springs Utilities and Gary Walker have reached a $7.1 million settlement for the damage to Walker Ranches from the Southern Delivery System pipeline.

The pipeline crosses 5.5 miles of the 63,000-acre property on its route from Pueblo Dam to Colorado Springs. The $841 million SDS project is scheduled to go online next year and will supply water to Colorado Springs, Fountain, Security and Pueblo West.

On May 6, a jury awarded Walker $4.75 million, which included a $4.665 million judgment beyond the $82,900 stipulated value of the easement across Walker Ranches. Damages plus interest would have brought the total payment to $5.78 million, according to a joint press release.

Utilities disputed the amount, and filed an appeal on May 7. Walker Ranches appealed the decision on May 14. Those appeals were dismissed as part of the settlement reached June 16, but announced on Thursday.

The final agreement resolves all claims for $7.1 million, the press release said.

Utilities will also install fencing on Walker Ranches to prevent cattle from entering the area of the SDS pipeline scar that is being revegetated, and will work with Walker to erect berms on the property to reduce erosion.

The agreement also commits both parties to work together in the future to protect the right of way.

Utilities said the settlement provides more certainty about the ultimate cost of the project, reducing the possibility of an expensive appeals process.

“It has always been our intent when working with property owners to use the court process as a last resort,” John Fredell, SDS program director, said in the news release. “By successfully resolving these issues with Mr. Walker, we can focus on completing the required revegetation on his property and finishing the SDS project on time and under budget.”

Walker, when contacted by The Pueblo Chieftain , declined to comment because of the conditions of the settlement.

During the trial, Walker claimed the SDS project had compromised a $25 million conservation easement on 15,000 acres he was negotiating with the Nature Conservancy. He has used about $13 million from past easements to expand the ranches, which is part of a long-term plan to prevent further urban sprawl in northern Pueblo County.

Ray Petros, Pueblo County’s special counsel, said he has not seen the settlement agreement, so he is uncertain about how the county’s 1041 permit for SDS would be affected. The county is teeing up compliance hearings later this year on revegetation and Fountain Creek flood control, which are referenced in conditions that are part of the 1041 permit.

More Southern Delivery System coverage here and here.

Restoring habitat along rivers & streams in western Colorado is a long-term project — Grand Junction Free Press

July 2, 2015
Colorado National Monument from the Colorado River Trail near Fruita September 2014

Colorado National Monument from the Colorado River Trail near Fruita September 2014

From the Grand Junction Free Presss (Shannon Hatch):

Have you noticed anything missing in the Grand Valley lately? Perhaps you’ve been out biking on the Colorado Riverfront Trail, walking along Connected Lakes, playing disc golf at Matchett Park, rafting the Colorado River, or driving along Monument Road and thought — hmmm — something is different here. I think there used to be more trees. Why did someone remove them? Is something going to take their place?

Recently, a number of organizations and individuals, including Colorado Parks & Wildlife, City of Grand Junction, Mesa County, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Tamarisk Coalition, and various private landowners have been undertaking a variety of riverside restoration projects along the Colorado River and its associated washes, from Palisade to Fruita. Much of this work is being completed under the umbrella of the Desert Rivers Collaborative (DRC), a public-private partnership dedicated to improving habitat along the Colorado and Gunnison Rivers in Mesa and Delta counties.

One of the main focal points of the DRC is the management of invasive plant species, including tamarisk (also known as salt cedar) and Russian olive, which can degrade the ability of areas along rivers and streams to provide essential habitat and resources for humans and wildlife alike. Tamarisk and Russian olive’s dense growth patterns can block access for recreation and agriculture, create hazards for river runners, invade popular campsites, channelize waterways, and, in the case of tamarisk, facilitate increased wildfires. Both species displace native vegetation, which negatively impacts fish and wildlife habitat, and water usage by these plants can also be substantial, most notably in areas where these species displace less thirsty plants, such as sagebrush and rabbitbrush.

Visually, as many of you may have noticed, initial removal of tamarisk and Russian olive can be quite dramatic. Due to the scope and densities of infestations, heavy equipment is often utilized to mulch trees across large acreages, leaving behind areas that some have likened to a “bomb blast” zone. And then there’s the issue of secondary weeds: some of our valley’s finest — including kochia, whitetop, Russian thistle, cheatgrass and perennial pepperweed — take a liking to these recently disturbed sites, often setting up shop in high-density.

Restoring habitat along rivers and streams is typically a multi-staged event, with initial removal merely the first act. In addition to on-going monitoring and maintenance, treatment of tamarisk and Russian olive resprouts, secondary weed spraying, and revegetation with native plants are also key components, and ones that often require a phased approach. For example, in order to avoid damage to desired plant species, revegetation activities may need to be put on hold until completion of herbaceous weed spraying, a process that can last several growing seasons.

Fortunately, landowners and managers in the Grand Valley are no strangers to the hard work and ongoing attention that these projects require. And thanks to more flexible grant funding, managers are now able to better plan for the myriad steps, often required over a multi-year time frame, needed to achieve restoration success. ˆ

As an example, 24 acres of tamarisk and Russian olive were treated at the Connected Lakes Section of James M. Robb Colorado River State Park in the winter of 2013. Resprouts and secondary weeds were sprayed at various stages in 2014. Revegetation with native plants, including grasses, forbs, cottonwoods, willows, and various shrubs, occurred earlier this year, with monitoring and maintenance an ongoing priority. In a testament to the importance of monitoring, Pete Firmin, park manager, noted that 15 cottonwood trees were lost in a single weekend to beaver activity, prompting changes in how the trees were protected. Pete also noted that “patience and planning are important in restoration work. Throughout the process we encourage the public to visit these sites and talk with the area manager about the ongoing plans for the land.”

While some of your favorite areas in town may currently be looking a bit bare, rest assured that restoration actions to improve these riparian habitats for the betterment of the community are underway. The legacy of invasive species impacts can’t be erased overnight, but with time, great improvements in the structure, function, accessibility, and enjoyment of these areas can be realized.

If you are interested in touring local restoration sites up-close and personal, consider joining Tamarisk Coalition on their annual Raft-the-River trip on Aug. 23. Rimrock Adventure guides and hand-picked local river experts will provide an informative, fun float down the Colorado River with après dinner, drinks, live music, and prizes to boot. For more information on the raft trip or to learn more about local restoration projects, please contact Tamarisk Coalition at 970-256-7400 or visit http://www.tamariskcoalition.org.

Shannon Hatch is restoration coordinator for the Tamarisk Coalition. This is part of a series of articles coordinated by the Water Center at Colorado Mesa University in cooperation with the Colorado and Gunnison Basin Roundtables to raise awareness about water needs, uses and policies in our region. To learn more about the basin roundtables and statewide water planning, and to let the roundtables know what you think, go to http://www.coloradomesa.edu/WaterCenter. You can also find the Water Center at http://www.Facebook.com/WaterCenter.CMU or http://www.Twitter.com/WaterCenterCMU.

More restoration coverage here.

Lake Mead watch: As the #ColoradoRiver dries up, will tourism? — High Country News

July 2, 2015

US Flag at Hoover Dam as the Olympic Torch passed over the dam in 1996

US Flag at Hoover Dam as the Olympic Torch passed over the dam in 1996

From The High Country News (Sarah Tory):

The Bureau of Reclamation reported June 30 that water levels have fallen to 1074.9 feet, 154 feet below capacity and 141 feet below its last peak in 1998.

Most public fears about Lake Mead’s decline center on the potential cutbacks in water deliveries — how much water is being released from the reservoir. But for Gripentog and other nearby business owners, there’s another set of concerns: As Mead dries up, so do the tourists they depend on.

Lake Mead National Recreation Area is the 6th most visited National Park unit in the country, attracting almost 7 million visitors each year and $260 million in local spending — and making Lake Mead the most valuable water recreation area in the entire Colorado River Basin, thanks to the crowds that come from Las Vegas. More than 3,000 jobs and 125 small businesses depend on that economy.

According to a recent report by graduate students at the University of Colorado, Boulder and the University of California, Santa Barbara, if water levels continue to fall, visitors to Lake Mead could drop by half and at 1,000 feet, the total economic loss could reach $280 million. Recreational visitors to the reservoir have been decreasing since 1996, a trend that matches declining water levels — though the study found that other factors, such as the economy and negative media coverage, could be adding to more recent declines.

From Utah Public Radio (Eliza Welsh):

Nuestro Rio, is a group of concerned Latinos in the Southwest which advocates for the preservation of the Colorado River. Director of the group, Nicole Gonzalez Patterson, says the record low levels are indicative of the over-allocation of the Colorado River.

“It’s sort of like a check engine light. It’s a clear marker telling us that we need to make some really tough choices about 2016 and figure out what we’re going to be doing to address the Colorado River water shortage,” Patterson said. “It’s the first time this type of level has hit and it’s just a clear illustration of the over-allocation of the Colorado River.”

Another concerned group is Protect the Flows, a coalition of businesses that promote new water policies and technologies. Co-director Craig Mackey says receding water levels in the two major reservoirs on the system- lakes Powell and Mead- reflect the imbalance in supply versus demand.

“We have to come together as Basin states. We have to come together as citizens of the Basin, and we have to come together as local government, state government, federal government, and water managers,” Mackey said. “We need those people in a room acting collaboratively on conservation, on innovation, new technologies and on investments.”

More Colorado River Basin coverage here.

Aspinall Unit operations update: Releases from Crystal to be lowered to 2000 cfs #ColoradoRiver

July 2, 2015
Aspinall Unit

Aspinall Unit

From email from Reclamation (Erik Knight):

Releases from Crystal Dam will be decreased from 3700 cfs to 2000 cfs between July 2nd and July 6th. Releases will be decreased by 200 cfs today, and then by 400 cfs each day over the next 3 days, with a final decrease of 300 cfs on the morning of July 6th. This reduction is in response to the continuing decline in runoff to the Aspinall Unit reservoirs. The current forecast for April-July unregulated inflow to Blue Mesa Reservoir is now 700,000 acre-feet which is 104% of average.

Flows in the lower Gunnison River are currently above the baseflow target of 1500 cfs. River flows are expected to stay above the baseflow target for the foreseeable future.

Pursuant to the Aspinall Unit Operations Record of Decision (ROD), the baseflow target in the lower Gunnison River, as measured at the Whitewater gage, is 1500 cfs for July.

Currently, diversions into the Gunnison Tunnel are around 1000 cfs and flows in the Gunnison River through the Black Canyon are 2800 cfs. After this release change Gunnison Tunnel diversions will be around 1000 cfs and flows in the Gunnison River through the Black Canyon should be around 1100 cfs. Current flow information is obtained from provisional data that may undergo revision subsequent to review.

More Aspinall Unit coverage here.

Colorado Supreme Court rules against private streams — Aspen Journalism

July 1, 2015
Spring Creek (RFC Ditch) Roaring Fork River via Aspen Journalism

Spring Creek (RFC Ditch) Roaring Fork River via Aspen Journalism

From Aspen Journalism (Brent Gardner-Smith):

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled on June 29 that the Roaring Fork Club in Basalt is not entitled to new “aesthetic, recreation and piscatorial (fishing)” water rights for a private fly-fishing stream the club created in an existing irrigation ditch.

“The club failed to demonstrate an intent to apply the amount of water for
which it sought a decree to any ‘beneficial use,’ as contemplated by either the constitution or statutes of the jurisdiction,” the court’s decision stated.

The court also found that “the club’s proposed ‘uses’ of the water in question, as expressed in its application, cannot be beneficial within the meaning of the Act because the only purpose they are offered to serve is the subjective enjoyment of the Club’s private guests,” the decision states.

“The flow of water necessary to efficiently produce beauty, excitement, or fun cannot even conceptually be quantified, and therefore where these kinds of subjective experiences are recognized by the legislature to be valuable, it has specifically provided for their public enjoyment, scientific administration, and careful measurement,” the court found.

The court, however, did side with the Roaring Fork Club in a related dispute with its downstream neighbor Reno Cerise, who is a partner in St. Jude’s Co. In its decision, the court rejected claims from St. Jude’s over access to and management of the irrigation ditch in question, and the court awarded the club attorney’s fees in that aspect of the case.

But a majority of the justices on the court said a prior water rights decree issued to the club in 2013 by the water court in Glenwood Springs was now invalid because the water was not being put to a lawfully recognized beneficial use, which is a keystone of Colorado water law.

In a brief against the club’s arguments, attorneys for the Colorado Dept. of Natural Resources told the court it had concerns that using irrigation ditches for private aesthetic purposes could dewater long stretches of streams and rivers.

“Without established limits, such uses can result in complete depletions of stream reaches for unlimited distances to the detriment of the stream reach and its public aesthetic and piscatorial benefits, maximum utilization, and compact development,” the brief from the Dept. of Natural Resources stated.

As it stands now, the decision “effectively prohibits any future direct flow rights to divert water from the stream for aesthetic, recreation or piscatorial (fishery) purposes,” according to Peter Fleming, the general counsel for the Colorado River District, which filed a brief supportive of the club’s case.

Fleming, in an interview, said that while the court’s decision did strip the club of its decree for such uses, it did not apply to other existing water right decrees.


Origins of the case

In 2007 the club applied to divisional water court in Glenwood Springs for formal recognition of a right to divert 21 cubic feet per second from the Roaring Fork River into an existing irrigation ditch for “aesthetic, recreation and piscatorial uses.”

The application for new water rights were in addition to the club’s existing water rights on the ditch, which include an irrigation right.

In its application, the club told the water court that in 1997 it had improved an irrigation ditch – the RFC Ditch – which is 14-to-25 feet wide and can move up to 45 cubic feet per second (cfs) of water.

And it said it was now using the ditch, which it dubbed “Spring Creek,” as an “aesthetic and recreational amenity to a golf-course development, as well as for fish habitat and as a private fly-fishing stream.”

On its website, the Roaring Fork Club states that “fishing around the Club property includes private access to eight stocked ponds, a one-mile stretch along the acclaimed Roaring Fork River and the one-mile long ‘Spring Creek’, an offshoot of the Fork that flows through the golf course.”

The club straddles 383 acres on either side of the Roaring Fork River just upvalley of downtown Basalt. It has about 550 members and includes 40 privately owned cabins.

“The club’s fishing, non-fishing, golfing and other members and visitors enjoy the scenic beauty that is Spring Creek, as the visual backdrop of the water feature and the sound of higher flowing water combine to create a unique experience for members, cabin owners and guests alike,” wrote an attorney for the club, Scott Miller, of the Basalt law firm of Patrick, Miller and Noto, in a recent supplemental brief to the court.

Miller’s brief also notes that the irrigation ditch, now a private fly-fishing stream, includes “pools, riffles, drop structures, and spawning beds, all of which enhance the overall aquatic habitat and cold water trout fishery in Spring Creek, and which require flowing water.”

Miller could not be reached for comment on the court’s decision.

But in 2013 St. Jude’s, which also uses the RFC Ditch to receive water downstream of the club, appealed the water court’s issuance of a decree to the club for aesthetic uses to the Colorado Supreme Court, which directly hears appeals from divisional water courts around the state.

“Recognition of aesthetics as a beneficial use would effectively function as a policy decision that the visual enhancement of private property is more important than any uses of junior upstream appropriators, and also more important than maintaining streamflow in the natural stream,” St. Jude Co.’s attorney, Gregory Cucarola of Sterling, argued in a recent brief to the Supreme Court.

After review, seven of the justices on the Supreme Court sided with St. Jude’s, at least as far as its water rights arguments went.

“The water court’s judgment decreeing the club’s new appropriative rights must therefore be reversed, and the decree for aesthetic, recreation and piscatorial uses vacated,” the court ruled.

Aerial view of the Roaring Fork Club (exhibit at trial) via Aspen Journalism

Aerial view of the Roaring Fork Club (exhibit at trial) via Aspen Journalism

A variety of views

Two justices issued a dissenting opinion in the case.

“The value that Spring Creek creates, as well as the ability to determine the amount of water needed to achieve its purposes, suggests that aesthetic, recreational, and piscatorial uses satisfy the ‘beneficial use’ requirement,” the dissenting opinion stated. “So, is such a flow-through feature “tantamount to a ‘forbidden riparian right,’” as the majority asserts? I think not.”

The dissenting opinion was written by Justice Monica M. Marquez, who was joined by Justice William W. Hood, III.

The Colorado River District released a statement about the court’s decision, after an inquiry from Aspen Journalism, from Peter Fleming, the district’s general counsel.

“The River District is disappointed in the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision in the St. Jude’s Co. v. Roaring Fork Club case that effectively prohibits any future direct flow rights to divert water from the stream for aesthetic, recreation or piscatorial (fishery) purposes,” Fleming said in an email.

“The majority opinion mistakenly characterizes recreational and fishery uses as purely ‘passive’ uses of water. Perhaps more importantly, the opinion creates an entirely new requirement that a water right is valid only if the intended use is achieved through an ‘objectively-active’ means of production.

“As noted in the Court’s dissenting opinion, the majority opinion ‘abolishes a well-established practice of the water courts in granting applications for [aesthetic, recreational, and piscatorial flow-through water rights].’

“Many existing West Slope landowners have invested in such features – a practice that has little or no impact on Colorado’s consumptive use of its Colorado River Compact entitlement,” Fleming said. “The decision will adversely impact the future ability of private land-owners to increase the value of their property through the construction of water features.”

The “ranch owners”

Also filing a joint amicus brief in the St. Jude’s case – in support of the private club – were Roaring Fork Homeowners Association, Inc., Thomas Bailey, Galloway, Inc., Jackson-Shaw/Taylor River Ranch, LLC, Crystal Creek Homeowners Association, Inc., Charles E. Nearburg and Catamount Development, Inc., and the Flyfisher Group, LLC.

The self-described “ranch owners” told the court that together they own 27,000 acres of land in Colorado.

They argued in their brief that “private use of water” actually benefits the public.

“Private use of water for piscatorial and aesthetic purposes benefits the public and the appropriator,” the “ranch owners” brief states. “As noted above, the economy of western Colorado is changing. More and more ranches are being purchased not just for traditional ranching uses, but also for their aesthetics and fish and wildlife values.

“The resulting increase in land values significantly increases the tax base of local governments and the overall health of local economies. Moreover, it is well established in the scientific literature that ditches and man-made streams operated for fishery purposes benefit not just these off channel structures, but the fishery as whole,” the brief said.

The brief also said that “the ranch owners, and many others, have also constructed water features on their properties, such as artificial waterfalls, cascades and waterways that greatly enhance the aesthetics and value of a property. The design of these improvements often requires the services of landscape architects and engineers.”

The ranchers also argue that if private streams are valuable to a landowner, then they are “beneficial” under state water law.

“Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, beneficial use is principally in the eye of the (water) appropriator,” the brief states.

County and state don’t support

On the other side of the issue were Pitkin County and the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, both of which filed amicus briefs (Pitkin County, DNR) with the Supreme Court against the Roaring Fork Club’s arguments.

“A diversion into a ditch for private piscatorial, recreational, or aesthetic uses is not a statutorily or Supreme Court-approved beneficial use, but has been recognized by various water courts in unappealed decrees,” a brief filed by attorneys for the department states.

The department’s brief also noted that when it comes to the enjoyment of water, a “more is better” factor raises questions about the potential wasting of water.

“With a ‘more is better’ duty of water unsupported by scientific evidence, subjective private piscatorial and aesthetic uses can result in complete depletions of stream reaches for unlimited distances to the detriment of the stream and its public piscatorial and aesthetic uses, resulting in waste and inefficiency, impairment of existing undecreed exchanges of water, and future exchanges,” the department’s brief states.

Editor’s note: Aspen Journalism is collaborating with The Aspen Times and the Glenwood Springs Post Independent on coverage of rivers and water. The Times published a version of this story online on Tuesday, June 30, 2015.

More water law coverage here.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,243 other followers

%d bloggers like this: