Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,,' , " <br /> <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board <br />Department of Natural Resources <br /> <br />721 Stale C.ateonia1 Buildiag <br />1313 Sbermaa Stree' <br />Deaver. Colorado 80203 <br />Pboae(303)866-3441 <br />FAX (303) 8664474 <br /> <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />. Roy Romer <br />Governor <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />James S. l....oc.hhead <br />Ex.ecmive DiIcaor. DNR <br />Daries C. We. P.E. <br />Direaor. CWCB <br /> <br />To: Colorado Water Conservation Board Members <br /> <br />From: Peter H. Evans ~ ~c,o L <br />Eugene I Jencsok ~. Q. <br /> <br />Date: November 6, 1995 <br /> <br />Re: Agenda Item #25(b), November 6-7, 1995 Board Meeting, <br />Fish Recovery ISF Appropriations - Modification Criteria & Related Issues <br /> <br />The Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) has clearly indicated its intent that the <br />proposed "fish recovery instrearn flow (ISF) water rights" will be modifiable in the future to <br />account for uncertainties related to both the recovery needs of the endangered fishes and the <br />water supply needs of the people of this state. As suggested in your recent meetings in Craig <br />(October 10, 1995) and Grand Junction (October 20, 1995), the development of criteria which <br />should guide the CWCB's future decisions could continue as an appropriate component of the <br />negotiation of terms and conditions to the decree during the adjudication of the "recovery flow" <br />water rights (as opposed to the proposed "baseflow" water rights). Other sirnificant issues <br />_ _rela~ed.to the proposed fish recovery instrearn flow water rights (both types) which have been <br />identified previously are also summarized below. <br />At your request, we have met with representatives of several other participants in the <br />Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Fish Species of the Upper Colorado River <br />Basin ("Recovery Program") to articulate the issues associated with the potential modification <br />criteria and begin their development. Written suggestions from the Colorado Water Congress' <br />special project on endangered fish recovery (Tom Pitts), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (John <br />Hamill) and the environmental community (Robert Wigington and Jim Martin) were very helpful <br />in facilitating our discussion concerning the modification criteria, and are attached for your <br />consideration. We have IlQ1 developed a consensus recommendation concerning the modification <br />criteria, and our discussions suggest that consensus among these interests will take a great deal <br />more time and effort to establish. <br />The first essential question we encountered in relation to the modification criteria is <br />whether the CWCB should consider factors other than consumptive uses and compact <br />apportionment. lbis question could unfold in at least two significant directions: <br />. Does the state's commitment to the Recovery Program imply any constraint on <br />when or where Colorado's compact apportionment can be developed (the <br />Recovery Program goal is to recover the endangered fishes while providing for <br />