Laserfiche WebLink
<br />;!'"'"' <br /> <br />question is how to deal with protecting water saved by <br />irrigation efficiency, a problem Governor Romer has <br />requested be solved. <br /> <br />2. In contrast to the above discussion, the February 21, <br />1990, agreement between the Colorado Water Conservation <br />Board and the Department of the Interior is the sole <br />success, to date, in delivering and protecting wet water <br />in the 15-mile reach for the endangered fishes. In this <br />agreement, the BOR leased water to the Board for its use <br />for instream flow purposes through the 15-mile reach, In <br />the 2-1/2 years of negotiations, we discussed and <br />discarded numerous alternative approaches to protecting <br />releases from the Ruedi Reservoir to offset the impacts of <br />a water sale that were agreed to as part of a biological <br />opinion issued in June 1987. That opinion was developed <br />during the same years that the Program was being written, <br />and is consistent with its approach. The opinion held <br />that the water sale would jeopardize the continued <br />existence of an endangered fish and that 10,000 acre-feet <br />of water should be released in the summer to offset the <br />impact the sale would have on the fish. An important <br />provision of the opinion was that the BOR had agreed that <br />no water was to be delivered from the Ruedi water sale <br />until the flow releases were legally protected in the 15- <br />mile reach. <br /> <br />a, Among the alternative approaches considered were: <br /> <br />(1) the Board file for a new appropriation for an <br />instream flow right for all the water needed by the <br />fishes and use the 10,000 acre-feet releases to <br />augment this right; <br /> <br />(2) the Board file for a new instream flow right for <br />10,000 acre-feet for a 3-month period of time; <br /> <br />(3) the Board file for 3-month instream flow for the <br />maximum amount of water the FWS would request to be <br />released over a 3D-day period (168 c.f.s.); and <br /> <br />(4) the BOR lease water to the Board. <br /> <br />b. In order to meet the United states' requirement <br />that any right be enforceable by the United States as <br />well as the state, it was agreed that the only <br />alternative available under Colorado law would be the <br />lease alternative. The Board is limited by Colorado <br />law as to when it can agree to another party enforcing <br />instream flow protections; the entity desiring to have <br />enforcement authority must have an ownership interest <br />in the water it desires to protect. Under Colorado <br /> <br />7 <br />