|
<br />August 15,2006
<br />
<br />The Water Report
<br />
<br />Jan
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />911,00
<br />
<br />- 465,18
<br />
<br />- 1,398,74
<br />
<br />504,17
<br />
<br />- 198,14
<br />
<br />- 782,08
<br />
<br />- 2,910,37
<br />
<br />- 6,521,39
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />- 3,110,83
<br />
<br />- 2,374.70
<br />
<br />- 10,918,68
<br />
<br />~1,640..18
<br />
<br />- 6.280,78
<br />
<br />- 7.287.71
<br />
<br />.Feb
<br />
<br />866,00
<br />
<br />685.06
<br />
<br />1,222,52
<br />
<br />443,67
<br />
<br />140,94
<br />
<br />677.76
<br />
<br />91,60
<br />
<br />Mar
<br />
<br />Jun
<br />
<br />Sep
<br />
<br />Nov
<br />
<br />Dee
<br />
<br />Jul
<br />
<br />Aug
<br />
<br />Oct
<br />
<br />Apr
<br />
<br />May
<br />
<br />Historic Dally Streamflow in ACRE FEET
<br />
<br />982,69
<br />
<br />2,724,41 13,079,76 25,287..28 6.877,15
<br />
<br />1.098.31
<br />
<br />831,74
<br />
<br />738,44
<br />
<br />2.248..87
<br />
<br />1,102,98
<br />
<br />1.346.48
<br />
<br />3,890,29 10,727,44 11,188,86 9.227,09
<br />
<br />1.150,82
<br />
<br />491,18
<br />
<br />5.712,12
<br />
<br />1,276,38
<br />
<br />598,12
<br />
<br />1,383,81
<br />
<br />2,341,45 9,963,45 22.507,19 13.708,55
<br />
<br />3.740,39
<br />
<br />1.581,65
<br />
<br />2,676,52
<br />
<br />1,902,81
<br />
<br />6,364,00
<br />
<br />668,83
<br />
<br />1,931,33 11.452.33 12,064,17 3,246,17
<br />
<br />628,83
<br />
<br />556.67
<br />
<br />1.254,67
<br />
<br />983,58
<br />
<br />896.67
<br />
<br />150,03
<br />
<br />324,07 1.757,10 3,328,86 2.443,13
<br />
<br />1,278,11
<br />
<br />304,55
<br />
<br />742.09
<br />
<br />603,24
<br />
<br />411,52
<br />
<br />8tO,94
<br />
<br />1,417,74 5,882.28 11.781,06 5,686,72
<br />
<br />870.74
<br />
<br />2,036,28
<br />
<br />1,454.50
<br />
<br />1,286.08
<br />
<br />985,72
<br />
<br />142.58
<br />
<br />560,27
<br />
<br />22,70
<br />
<br />334.05
<br />
<br />296,17
<br />
<br />483,17
<br />
<br />2.022,53
<br />
<br />4,110.32
<br />
<br />210.46
<br />
<br />118,00
<br />
<br />3.383.50 8.523,27 14,838,24 32,290,46 58,892,94 39,830.59 24.309,35 8,883.35 6.643,49 5.678,68 3,086,77
<br />
<br />5.746,38 7,767,72 18,031,58 55,809,25 73.008,70 38,800,78 22.515,15 16.011,57 12.277,03 8.883,86 7,301,72
<br />
<br />2,902,93 5,183,97 19.406,]9 53,187,91 53.297,52 11,064.79 4.632,65 3,292,89 4.160.43 3,797,53 3,238,96
<br />
<br />2.196,28 2.520,33 3,760,57 9.576,98 20,858,72 12.863.41 7.333.35 4,723.67 3,748,91 2,944.04 2.625,27
<br />
<br />9.765..36 10,314,48 11.470.64 31.656,84 60,945,36 43,423,78 26,428.11 14,385,54 12,391.50 12.367,59 11,705,34
<br />
<br />1.588,71 2,281,82 6,830,65' 35.300,94 44,966.47 18,160,29 6.757,12 4,046,82 3,338.18 2.399,94 1,990,35
<br />
<br />5,808,62 9,210.40 25,223,19 71.269,57 64.227,86 36.587,99 17.648,39 13.712.01 12.625,58 8.557,43 6.888,94
<br />
<br />6,116.43 5.966,92 10.121,75 27,210.12 42,632,50 25,227.25 15,394,00 12,482,62 11,455.86 8.322.57 7.837,86
<br />
<br />h.: ~....::; ~:<>;~/~{~;X~+d ~?~.'~::~:~~~~f~.:~-~:.i:
<br />
<br />~tG~~,.:
<br />
<br />-- ':>"-':'. :"~:~_..-::~_~.':~:J:~:>;:"J'"
<br />- . . ~5L(.::~".l;:'.~~:>~;~:::~\:"~ ~
<br />~. '.; -." -
<br />"'-". 'Y'-.,- ,
<br />~.- :~',- .'-.' . ~,~~:/:";~;.;: ..';~--<'
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />".'Resource
<br />. Allocation .,..
<br />
<br />
<br />Upon adjudication of the recreational in-channel water rights, the DWR is responsible for
<br />incorporating these rights into the priority system and the hydrologic nuances of each different stream
<br />system in the daily water administration process. The ensuing narrative attempts to address the
<br />predominant water administration issues that challenge water administration officials and water users.
<br />The first issue relates to resource allocation. Similar to other adjudicated water rights, an RICD
<br />imposes additional workload demands upon the State's water administration officials. It is important to
<br />recognize that, although new water rights may retain a junior water right priority, their value and ability
<br />to exercise demands for water delivery are not diminished - they retain equal significance to all other
<br />water rights and are afforded an equitable allocation of water administration service. The problem facing
<br />all water users is an increasing number of adjudicated water rights, often with higher levels of
<br />complexity, without a commensurate increase in personnel or operating funds necessary to adequately
<br />incorporate additional water rights in an already saturated water allocation system.
<br />The twin pillars of water allocation practice in Colorado are,to maximize the beneficial consumptive
<br />
<br />Copyright@ 2006 Envi~tech Publications; Reproduction without permission strictly prohibited.
<br />
<br />5
<br />
|