Laserfiche WebLink
<br />immediate concern. Determination of the magnitude of these flows is also of great <br />significance. The fmal report is anticipated to be available by summer, 1993. <br /> <br />INTERIM FLOW PROTECTION CONCEPT <br /> <br />In this context, the CWCB is evaluating alternative opportunities for instream flow <br />protection while uncertainties about the needs of the fish and development of <br />Colorado's campact entitlement are resolved. The CWCB plans to solicit public <br />COmment concerning these and other options at its Ju1y 22-23, 1993 Board meeting. <br />The following list of options is provided as a means of stimulating this evaluation: <br /> <br />. Take no further action by the Board in appropriating instream flow water <br />rights until the scientific data is considered completely acceptable, then <br />appropriations in the full amount (established by the flow <br />recommendations) could be made. <br /> <br />. Appropriation of an absolute right could be made for less than the <br />recommended amount, with the expectation that additional amounts <br />would be appropriated in the future as the scientific basis for the flow <br />recommendation is better developed and issues with respect to the <br />development of Calorado's compact apportionment are resolved. <br /> <br />. Appropriate both an absolute water right for a portion of the flow <br />recommendation (based upon the water availability analysis and the <br />strength of supporting science and data) and a conditional or temporary <br />(5?, 25?) year right for the balance of the flow recommendation. <br /> <br />. Appropriate a portion of the flow recommendation amount for a (5?, <br />25?) year period, The right would no longer be in effect at the end of <br />(5?, 25?) years unless a finding was made that all or part of this portion <br />of the right was necessary to sustain the endangered fish popu1ations. <br />This would be a renewable option. <br /> <br />The Service believes that this option does not meet Endangered <br />Species Act (ESA) needs because protection needs to be <br />perpetual, and therefore this option is not acceptable to the <br />Service. <br /> <br />. The Board cou1d appropriate the full flow recommendation amount for <br />a (5?, 25?) year period, and the right would end at the end of (5?, 25?) <br />years unless a finding was made that all or part of the right was necessary <br />to sustain the endangered fish populations. This would be a renewable <br />option. . <br /> <br />4 <br />