The San Juan Water Conservancy District (SJWCD) Board of Directors considered at its Feb. 17 meeting if it should oppose efforts to make a water right on the West Fork of the San Juan River absolute due to concerns about the amount of water diverted and the amount of property irrigated.
According to the Colorado Water Court District 7 resume for January 2025, River Ridge LLC applied to make its water right for the Caribou Ditch, which diverts water from West Fork of the San Juan River, and for Caribou Springs, a spring tributary of the San Juan River, absolute due to the applicant having put the water to beneficial use irrigating, providing aesthetic enhancements and water for wildlife on their property.
The resume explains that the Caribou Ditch diversion is for 1 cubic feet per second (cfs) of water, while the Caribou Springs right is for 10 gallons per minute (gpm).
According to the resume, both rights will be used to improve the aesthetic and wildlife attributes of the owner’s property, for stock watering and to irrigate 25 acres of land.
It adds that, in 2022, the applicant began to apply the water that was conditionally decreed to beneficial use by irrigating 2.25 acres using the Caribou Ditch water right.
The resume continues that the applicant seeks to expand the area irrigated and eventually fully utilize both the conditional water rights in Caribou Ditch and Caribou Springs.
At the meeting, SJWCD legal counsel Jeffrey Kane explained that both rights were adjudicated in 2004 and have 2004 priority dates.
He explained that he was concerned about the application due to the high amount of water being used to irrigate the 2.25 acres.
He noted that, in the resume, the applicant claimed it had diverted 1 cfs to irrigate the 2.25 acres, “which is a really extreme duty of water.”
Kane commented that 1 cfs of water would normally irrigate 40 or 60 acres and that, in “really extreme cases” only 20 acres can be irrigated with 1 cfs.
He added that the adjudication on this case predates a Colorado Supreme Court ruling that direct diversion water rights cannot be used for artificial streams or other water features, which this right involves.
Kane stated that he would be concerned about the right to use water in this way being made absolute.
“In terms of my thoughts on this, it’s not a big amount of water,” Kane said. “On the other, it’s extreme to claim you’ve used a cfs to irrigate 2.25 acres, and it is troubling that they’ve continued with the conditional aesthetic and wildlife direct diversion uses even after [the Colorado Supreme Court case barring such uses].”
SJWCD board member Susan Nossaman commented that she has a water right on her property for the irrigation of 5 acres that allows diversion of 0.1 cfs.
SJWCD board president Candace Jones commented that there could be a “typo” in the documentation for the case, but that it would be worth inquiring about if the facts in the notice are correct.
Kane commented that he could reach out to the applicant’s counsel and see if the resume is correct.
He added that he has until the end of the month to file a statement of opposition to the right.
Jones questioned if the board should authorize Kane to file a complaint since it would not have another meeting before the end of the month and did not want to lose the opportunity to object.
Kane stated that the board could authorize him to file a statement and have him work with a board member about whether to file a statement or not.
Jones commented that “for the integrity of staying on top of all of this stuff, every cfs is going to count.”
Following more discussion of the issue, SJWCD board member Robert Hagberg moved that the board direct Kane to file a statement of opposition if the information in the resume concerning the amount of water used and the area irrigated are accurate.
The board unanimously approved the motion.
josh@pagosasun.com
