Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Memo to Colorado Water Conservation Board Members <br />From: Peter Evans and Gene Jencsok <br />Date: October 17, 1995 <br />SUBJECT: Agenda Item 2, October 20, 1995 Board Meeting <br />Endangered Fish Recovery ISF Water Right - Colorado River (Mainstem) <br /> <br />Page 8 <br /> <br />endangered fish. The total instrtam now appropriations suggested in Table 4 arc no grealcr on average: than will flow out ofstate under the <br />compacts. The: more: significanl challenge: will be in arriving at monthly or daily distributions for thc:~ annual amounts which protect both <br />water development opportunities and the: needs of the endangered fish given the variable: hydrology which oecUM: both annually and seasonally. <br />Also, the: slruclurc: and format oflhc: water right application will be important. particularly in light ofthc: recent decision in the: AJfNn <br />Wi/tUrMn Workshop, Inc. ". The Colorado Walf!r Conservation Board (Snowmass Creek. Case). <br />"H. OUf recommended approach does not foreclose any rasonablc: development opportunities within Colorado's compact <br />apportionment. As suggesled in the CWCB's Statement of Policy and Procedure, it presumes that within the time: it will lake: to fully develop <br />the recommended range: of new consumptive uses, new information about the endangered fISh will become available such that the CWCB and <br />others will find it necessary to reevalua1e the si(uation and the state"s needs. The open process employed in assembling Utese <br />recommendations, facilitated through the suppon of the CWCB's staff and others, is helpful in promoting the use of the best informalion <br />available and enabling a div~c: group of interested parties to participa1e in policy fonnulation. However, the:re: are limits to what can be <br />expecled from a group representing statewide interests, md the organization ofsimilac groups within the: principal subbasins should also be <br />pursued in order to fine tune the information." <br />We have reviewed these observations and recommendations, and have taken them into <br /> <br />consideration in the development of our recommendation. <br /> <br />Phvsical Water Availability Study. Before the CWCB can appropriate an instream flow <br />water right, it must determine that water is physically available for the appropriation within the <br />proposed instream flow segment. Water availability studies for the 15 Mile Reach have been <br />conducted using hydrologic and water rights administration records from the Cameo Gage, <br />which is located upstream of the proposed instream flow segment. Streamflow records for the <br />1970- I 992 period were evaluated and adjusted to reflect current (1992) levels of depletion. <br />Daily and average monthly flows were analyzed statistically, and daily and monthly flow <br />duration curves were plotted. In addition, annual volumes and annual peak flows were tabulated, <br />statistical distributions were calculated, and flow duration curves for the annual volumes and <br />annual peak flows were plotted. <br />These curves can be used to determine what percentage of the time a given daily flow, <br />monthly flow, annual volume, or annual peak flow would occur during the adjusted 1970-1992 <br />period in the IS Mile Reach. This information is documented in a report entitled Colorado River <br />- J 5 Mire Reach. Physical Water Availability Study and dated August 30, 1995, <br /> <br />~- <br /> <br />Other Efforts to Restore and Protect Flows in the IS Mile Reach. It has become obvious <br />that restoration and protection of flows which "mimic" the natural flow regime for the 15 Mile <br />Reach cannot be accomplished through the appropriation of junior water rights, Management of <br />water resources upstream from the IS Mile Reach for consumptive and non-consumptive uses <br />have substantially altered the natural flow regime. Furthermore; there are many conditional <br />water rights (approximately 3,6 million acre-feet of storage rights and 90,500 cfs of direct flow <br />rights) which will be senior to the proposed 1995 fish recovery instream flow water rights, If <br />developed, these senior rights would take priority in the allocation of available water and could <br />significantly reduce the existing flows in the IS Mile Reach. <br />Therefore, the Recovery Program has initiated several supplemental efforts to improve <br />flow conditions in the 15 Mile Reach. These supplemental efforts include agreements for the <br />