Laserfiche WebLink
<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 I1Q1 acceptable to the <br />Service. <br /> <br />I <br />. Make srnall appropriations now for (5?, 25) years. This would be a non- <br />renewable right, under which the right would end in the amount of time <br />specified in the agreement. <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 lli!1 acceptable to the <br />Service. <br /> <br />. Make appropriations now in the full amount of the flow recommendation <br />for (5?, 25?) years. This would be a non-renewable option, and the right <br />would terminate at the end of time specified. If additional water rights <br />were still needed by the fish, the Board would have to consider a new <br />instream flow appropriation. <br /> <br />. Make appropriations now in the full amount of the flow recommendation <br />as a conditional right (with no termination date). <br /> <br />'-J <br />. Appropriate the full amount of the fl<?w recommendation now as an <br />absolute right. .- . <br /> <br />--""'-. <br />The concept of "Interim Conditional Flows" was first presented to the Board at its May, -, <br />1992 meeting, and the Board directed the staff to develop this concept further. The <br />concept was developed as a means for identifying and addressing uncertainty issues <br />associated with instream flow issues in Colorado. The majority of the identified issues <br />dealt with the uncertainty regarding the magnitude and location of development of <br />Colorado's compact apportionment and the uncertainty with respect to the technical~. <br />adequacy of the Service's flow recommendations. <br /> <br />The concept recognizes that Colorado will develop its compact apportioned waters, <br />while at the same time, acquiring or appropriating water for the fish. However, due to <br />the uncertainty of future development of Colorado's compact entitlement (Le., the <br />. amount to be developed on each tributary), it may be difficult or impossible for the <br />Board to make final decisions to protect instream flows for the fish in the amounts <br />requested by the Service at this time. In order to resolve these conflicts and protect <br />flows on an interim basis, the suggestion of filing for absolute and "conditional" instream <br />flow rights, or a combination of absolute and "conditional" instream flow rights <br />(depending on the situation) was developed. If adopted, the criteria for each type of <br />filing might be as follows: <br /> <br />) <br /> <br />5 <br />