@111? $1319 Wan?Jag.4. .. .. mammal-ml.

Gale A. Norton 110 15m Street - 19th Floor
Attorney General DEPARTM ENT .01: AW Denver, Colorado 80202
Raymond T. Slaughter Phone 620-4500

Chief Deputy Attorney General ??35 ?mm? FAX {303) 6204130

Timothy M. Tymkovich
Solicitor General

March 17, 1992

 

Jed Caswall, Esq.
City Attorney
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611

RE: Castle Creek Water Rights
Dear Jed:

In early March we spoke about questions posed by my client
the Division 5 Engineer concerning the City of Aspen's Castle
Creek water rights. The water service agreement between the City
of Aspen and Castle Creek Valley Ranch Partnership brought this
issue to our attention. In that agreement the City of Aspen a?
greed to lease a portion of the Midland Flume water right owned
by Aspen to Castle Creek Valley Ranch partnership-in order to
augment depletions from 29 wells to be built-on their proposed
development.

 

My client was troubled by this water service agreement
because it appears to expand the use of the?water subject of the
decree in that it does not commit the City to reducing its con-
sumptive use by the amount of water leased to the developer. In
addition, the Division Engineer believes that this water service
agreement would cause water to be used for domestic purposes in
excess of that used by Aspen for domestic purposes in the past.?

 

The State Engineer discussed this matter with me on March
16, 1992. At that time he indicated that he was willing to
recognize the water service agreement as a proper augmentation
source even though it may not technically meet the statutory cri~
teria for approval of augmentation plans but he would do so only
if the City of Aspen was willing to prevent this type of expan-
sion of use from ever happening again. ?To achieve that end and
to clear up possible misconceptions regarding interpretations of
the Midland Flume water right, the State Engineer proposes that
the City of Aspen abandon 73 of the Midland Flume water
right. Our gauging information indicates that Castle Creek

 v?

9?

 

 

Jed Caswall, 
Page 2 t$5? i

. 2? I I
rarely has more than 35 flowing in the stream at your decreed
point of diversion. 

The State Engineer's staffIr Division Engineer's staff and
this office would be happy to conduct further discussions about
this issue with you, city officials or the city counsel. The
timing on this issue is somewhat rushed as Castle Creek Valley
Ranch Partnership has set their application for trial 1992. In the event that no agreement is reached
with Asyen the State Engineer has authorized this office to seek
to abandon 75 of the Midland Flume Ditch in its efforts to
defeat Castle Creek Valley Ranch Partnership's Plan for augmenta?
tion. 

I look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

  
  

     
 




istant torney General
Natural Resources Section



cc: Hal Simpson, Acting State Engineer
Judy Sappington, SEO
Orlyn Bell, Division 5 Engineer
Alan Martellaro, Ass't Div. 5 Engineer



AG Alpha No. NR we IAFBN
AG File No. EEN9200168