Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
CWCB declares intent to appropriate 13 in‑stream flow segments in Divisions 4–6; public notice to begin
Loading...
Summary
The board voted to declare intent to appropriate in‑stream flow (ISF) water rights on 13 stream segments in water divisions 4, 5 and 6 and authorized staff to proceed with the notice and stakeholder process required under ISF rules.
The Colorado Water Conservation Board voted Jan. 28 to declare its intent to appropriate in-stream flow (ISF) water rights on 13 stream segments in Water Divisions 4, 5 and 6 and to begin the required public notice and comment process. Staff presented each recommendation, supporting technical analyses and the outreach conducted to date.
Lede detail: Rob Veil, CWCB ISF staff, described a multistep process that includes notice to property owners and stakeholders, field measurements and hydrologic analysis, water availability assessments, and an evaluation of potential injury under Colorado law. The staff packet included executive summaries and appendices documenting R2Cross hydraulic modeling used to quantify the hydraulic criteria for the recommendations.
The 13 recommendations: Staff presented proposals across the Uncompahgre, Gunnison and Colorado drainage areas. Examples of recommendations included Beaver Dams Creek (a 3.2-mile reach proposed to protect Colorado River cutthroat trout), reaches in the Hubbard Creek drainage and Canyon/Cabin creeks near Gunnison (recommended to support trout and riparian communities), increases to existing decrees on Red Creek and Derby Creek, and a Division 6 recommendation for Clear Creek in Rio Blanco County to protect native fishes such as speckledace and mountain suckers.
Why it matters: ISF water rights are a legal, perpetual mechanism Colorado can use to protect the natural environment in specific river reaches. The board’s decision to declare intent to appropriate initiates the formal rule‑driven notice and protest process; unsuccessful protests could lead to a contested hearing in September, while uncontested items may come back for final action at the May board meeting.
Process and schedule: Veil walked the board through the calendar: notice following the Jan. 28 decision; public comment and initial notices at the March meeting; deadlines for contested‑hearing party status in April; and possible final board action on uncontested appropriations at the May meeting. Any contested ISF hearings would be scheduled for September. Staff said it will ask the attorney general’s office to file the formal Water Court application by the end of 2025 for recommendations that move forward.
Ending: Board members asked questions about certain local outreach steps, and BLM and CPW representatives thanked staff for coordination; staff said they will continue stakeholder engagement and return with final items as required by the ISF rule process.
