Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. Increased risk of stranding, predation and disease <br />. Decreased available spawning and rearing habitat <br /> <br />3. What is the impact on water's ecolo2:ical value of havin2: a fullv developed water <br />resource at the same time we face continuaIlv increasin2: demands for water? <br /> <br />Having a fully developed water resource creates a zero sum game with regard to <br />changing water uses. In large part because ecosystem protection was recognized as a <br />beneficial use only late in the life of the prior appropriation system, and then only in a <br />limited way, the CUlTent allocation of the water pie has resulted in unsustainable <br />depletions and alterations of western rivers, including many in Colorado. Thus, <br />restoration of a critical mass of rivers is difficult indeed. The constraints of a largely <br />over-appropriated situation on moving water to ecosystem protection are, simply put, <br />formidable. Not only are there significant costs of transfers, but philosophical resistance <br />remains in many corners of the water establishment to the notion that the use of water to <br />sustain ecosystems should be on a par with traditional, diversionary water uses. <br /> <br />Still, there are a surprising number of entities who are at least willing to, and in some <br />cases affirmatively engaged in, shifting some water back to ecosystem protection. <br />Interestingly, these entities have quite varied interests in such work: <br /> <br />. Federal agencies with obligations to protect threatened and endangered species; <br />. State and local government agencies, along with affected water users, who want to <br />avoid additional species' listings or mitigate the effect of such listings on water users; <br />. Agricultural producers who have discovered that recreation based on healthy stream <br />flows can provide an important income stream; and <br />. TU, other conservation organizations (including those focused primarily on land use <br />preservation) and state water trusts. <br /> <br />Because most western state legal systems severely limit the availability of market-based <br />water transactions for moving water to ecosystem protection, these entities resort to other <br />means, some of which are more popular than others. Given the reality that the bulk of the <br />region's water development occUlTed before anyone thought much about the importance <br />of the value of ecosystems (or the value of water to ecosystems), there are often three <br />components to this approach: conserve what's still functioning, protect streams at risk <br />and restore enough degraded rivers to sustain a functioning ecosystem. Colorado <br />conservation organizations have nicknamed this River CPR. See, Facing Our Future <br />(2005), available at a booth outside or on-line at www.cotrout.org; the relevant section of <br />this report is reprinted in the attached Appendix.) <br /> <br />Regional examples of creative means for restoring stream flow include: <br /> <br />. Re-operations of federal facilities to restore fisheries, as occUlTed on the South Fork <br />of the Snake River using Bureau of Reclamation facilities <br />. V oluntary agreements to forego diversions during drought to protect minimum <br />fishery flows, as the Blackfoot Challenge accomplished in Montana; <br />