Ki BEFORE THE COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD STATE OF COLORADO CONCERNING THE APPLICATION FOR WATER RIGHTS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY IN PITKIN LJATIJ. 1411.333: uu.I:1ubeL ax, z.u 3:55 PM ..Lakes..Rese1'.voir..and ..Canal. .. .. . Company: CARLSON, HAMMOND L.L.C. Mary Mead Hammond, Reg. No. 9851 Karl D. Ohlsen, Reg. No. 32497 1900 Grant Street, Suite 1200 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: (303) 861-9000; Fax: (303) 861-9026 Email: Case Number: IOCW305 COMPANY PRE-MEETIN STATEMENT OF THE TWIN LAKES RESERVOIR AND CANAL Objector, the Twin Lakes Reservoir and Canal Company ("Twin Lakes"), by its undersigned counsel, submits this Pre~Meeting Statement for consideration pursuant to the . Colorado Water Conservation Board's and - Deadlines for Submissions dated December 20, 2013. I. I Twin Lakes Reservoir and Canal Company Twin Lakes is the owner and claimant of decreed water rights on the Roaring Fork River and its tributaries. Twin Lakes seeks to protect its senior decreed water rights from the repercussions that may arise from administration or curtailment of water use in Colorado to compiryr with Co1ora'do"s obligation under' the Colorado River Compact or the"U'pper'_ comes 0 River Basin Compact, and seeks to ensure flexibility in the administration of water rights in the Colorado River and its tributaries in order to minimize injury and negative impacts on senior water rights resulting from such compact administration or curtailment of water use. II. Standard of Review When an applicant files an application for a recreational in-channel diversion it must submit a copy of the application to the CWCB for review. C.R.S. Pursuant to C.R.S. the CWCB must consider the following three factors and each. Whether the adjudication and administration of the recreational in--channel diversion would materially impair the ability of Colorado to fuIly_d_e1el_0_p_and_place_to consumptive beneficial use its compact entitlements; - IV. Whether exercise of the recreational in-channel diversion would cause material injury to instrearn flow water rights appropriated pursuant to subsections (3) and (4) of this section; and I V. Whether adjudication and administration of the recreational in--channel diversion would promote maximum utilization of waters of the state. List of Disputed Factual and Legal Issues and Twin Lakes' Position on these Issues Twin Lakes asserts the following concerns regarding Pitkin County's RICD application that relate to the first (I) and third (V) factors listed above. Twin Lakes requests that the CWCB consider the following disputed issues when evaluating Pitkin County's proposed RICD. A. RICDS and Compact Development, Including Risk Management The watercourt cannot decree laaproposed RICD "that" will "'rn'ateri'ally impair the ability of Colorado to fully develop and place to consumptive beneficial use its compact entitlements." C.R.S. Pitkin County maintains that its proposed RICD water right will not impair Colorado's development of its compact entitlements. However, the facts indicate that Pitlcin County's proposed RICD _may impair the State's development of its compact entitlements by (1) by reducing the State's flexibility to manage its water entitlements under the Colorado and Upper Colorado River Compacts, and (2) restricting future upstream consumptive uses and water develo_pme_n_t_ poten_ti_a_i. . . . In order to minimize injury to senior water rights during periods of compact administration and curtailment, Twin Lakes believes that as-yet undecreed junior exchanges of water acquired below the proposed RICD by upstream senior diverters to replace compact restricted senior rights will be necessary. However, RICDS, including the one applied for in Case No. IOCWBOS, which will be senior to any exchanges currently contemplated to address compact curtailment, may limit or prohibit the exercise of such exchanges and effectively eliminate the benefit of such exchanges. 2 Twin Lakes, along with others who own water rights that may be subject to compact- related curtailment under the Colorado and Upper Colorado River Compacts, remains concerned that the RICD might impair its ability to operate .a junior exchange in the limited situation of a curtailment of Twin Lakes' senior upstream water rights by state water officials in order to meet River Compact or the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact. In that limited situation, Twin Lakes may seek to operate an exchange, whether administrative or appropriati_v_e, through Pitkin County's proposed RICD reach in order-to replace diversions from its curtailed water rights RICD reach or on the main stem of the Colorado River. Thus, in order to address that specific situation, Twin Lakes seeks terms and conditions i-n the decree preventing Pitkin County from exchanges operating for the sole purpose of replacing curtailed Twin Lakes' diversions. This may be accomplished by including terms and conditions in the decree allowing operation of a junior exchange for that limited purpose through the RICD, or, alternatively, requiring Pitkin County not to place a call under the RICD water right when such an exchange is being operated. In addition, Twin Lakes asserts that Pitkin County must agree that the RICD will be administered according to any rules promulgated by the State Engineer or other such state agency to avoid, delay, implement or recover from any compact-related cnrtailments of Twin Lakes' water rights. Further, Pitkin County's proposed RICD will restrict the State's ability to develop its remaining compact entitlements in an efficient, cost effective manner. Pitkin County's proposed RICD, alone and in combination with other decreed and pending RICDS in Water Division No. 5, will restrict future water development in the headwater areas where the primary demand for such development exists. While water allocated to Colorado by the compacts may remain available for development at locations, -there may be limited development at these"downst're'ar'r1' sites""becau'se' "of "cost," engineer:-rugs and technical issues, environmental issues, and an absence of regional demands for water. Pitkin C_ounty's proposed RICD could adversely impact Colorado's efforts to implement projects and processes to most effectively develop its remaining compact entitlements _-at the upstream locations where demand is the greatest, and the water is most needed. Although the carve--out provision proposed by Pitkin County may alleviate this concern to some degree, its limited duration (10 years) and scope (3,000 acre--feet of depletions) may not be sufficient to fully develop Colorado's compact all_oc_at__ion._ __I_t_effecti_vely_elimi_nates any_large--scale developmentdue. to both the quantity- limitation and the short planning period allotted. A longer period of time, such as the 20 years proposed by the CWCB, may reduce the RICD's substantial adverse impact on the state's ability to fully develop its compact allocation. IV. Witnesses Twin Lakes may call the following witnesses: 1 3 A. Kevin. Lnsk, President, Twin Lakes Reservoir and Canal Company, c/o Colorado Springs Utilities, P.O. Box 1103, MSC 1300, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80947-1325. Phone: (719) 668-8719. Mr. Lusk has knowledge regarding the ownership, operation, and administration of Twin Lakes' existing, decreed, and claimed water rights and exchanges, the potential water rights impacts of the Application on Twin Lakes' water rights, the water rights of for future water development in the Colorado River basin, compliance with the Colorado River Compact and the Upper Colorado River Compact, demand for water rights and ex_cha_ng.es in the Colorado River basin, nonconsumptive water needs, and anything identified in B. Scott Campbell, General Manager, The Twin Lakes Reservoir and Canal Campbell may present information regarding the ownership, operation, and administration of Twin Lakes' existing, decreed, and claimed waterrights. C. Kerry Sundeen, Hydrologist, Grand River Consulting. Mr. Sundeen has knowledge regarding the same matters as Mr. Lnsk. V. Exhibits Twin Lakes does not intend to present exhibits at themeeting of the CWCB. Twin Lakes reserves the right to offer exhibits in rebuttal and to comment on exhibits tendered to the CWCB. Respectfully snbmittedthis 27th day of December, 2013. CARLSON, HAMMOND 85 PADDOCK, L.L.C. Mary Mead" Hammond Karl. Ohlsen ATTORNEYS FOR THE TWIN LAKES RESERVOIR AND CANAL COMPANY . - - - 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 27"' day of December 2013 I electronically filed by LexisNex_i_s File and Serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing PRE-HZEARIN STATEMENT OF THE TWIN LAKES RESERVOIR AND CANAL COMPANY in Case were served on the following parties by LexisNexis File and Serve, or by U.S. mail, first--class postage prepaid, for all parties not enrolled to receive electronic _fili_ngsAspen, City Cir Opposer Covell, Andrea Benson Colorado Fliver Water Conservation Opposer Jason Turner, Peter Distri Fleming Div. 5 Engineer Division Engineer - Division 5 water Engineer Fall Line Properties LLC Opposer Mark Hamilton, William Caile, Alison Eastley Gre ll Opposer Kevin Patrick, Danielle Van Arsdale 1 - 5 Pitkin County Board Of County Applicant Timothy-Beaten, 'E.'ommissio'n Patricia Dechristopher, Anne Bensard Southeasiern Colorado Water Conservancy Opposer Alix Joseph State Engineer State Engineer Colorado Division Of-Water Resources Warren Creek LLC Opposer Mark Hamilton, William Caile, Alison Eastley IS DOCUMENT WAS E-FILED PURSUANTTO RULE I21. DULY-SIGNED ORIGINAL IS ON FILE AT THE OFFICES OF CARLSON. HAMMOND PADDOCK. LL. C. I