Colorado River Basin Activities and Issues - 5

Home Browse Search

1. The State through DWR and CWCB could prepare a set of administrative choices including but not limited to: a. Curtailment of junior appropriators without regard to sub-basin; b. Curtailment based on flow from each sub-basin; c. Curtailment based on a two tiered system of current and reasonably foreseeable depletions, and future depletions.2 2. The Interbasin Compact Process could then provide input on how various administrative choices might impact different consumptive and nonconsumptive uses of water and different geographic areas. 3. A summary of these impacts and public feedback could be provided to the State for DWR, CWCB, and others to weigh in their decision of how a compact call should be administered. Question Three: How can/should the State of Colorado approach full development of the Colorado River? Summary How do we approach full development from the interstate compact perspective? Should we approach full development of the Colorado River from a finn yield or average yield basis? These questions were posed by Eric Kuhn to the IBCC. The 1922 Compact helped avoid application of the appropriation doctrine on an interstate basis. The negotiators knew the Supreme Court had looked at the issue of adjacent states sharing water, and upper basin states worried that if their development had to compete on the basis of priority with California or other states, which had large rights already in place, there would be no water left for future development in the upper basin. The Compact allowed development independent of priority in the lower basin. Is the appropriation doctrine the way to reach full development of the resource in Colorado? Are we headed toward a series of intrastate compacts between the four major basins in Colorado that contribute to the Colorado River and the Front Range, or do you allow the appropriation doctrine to control? For planning purposes, Denver Water looks at the 1953 to 1956 drought, and analyzes the ability of their system to make water deliveries to customers under those conditions. Denver uses a firm yield approach, because they need to make sure all of their customers get water, even in a drought. Other systems use different time periods for planning. The rationale behind using firm yield is that we can be safe, and deliver water through a reasonably dry period. However, average yield takes advantage of times when there is a lot of water. Using the finn yield approach would lead to rare compact calls. The C Several sub-basins have some protection for reasonably foreseeable depletions. The Yampa has current uses plus 60.000 a.f. of future uses accounted for in their PBO. the Gunnison has 60.000 a.f. subordinated to the Aspinall Unit. and the Colorado mainstem has protection for current and future uses (172.825 a.f.) under the Endangered Fish Recovery Program. Under this administrative option. the first uses cUliailed would be uses above and beyond these already recognized protections. The second tier of curtailment would be current and reasonably foreseeable uses based on priority. flow by sub-basin. or some other combination.