Laserfiche WebLink
wet and dry years, etc. – will continue into the future. He asks “Is that a good assumption <br />in today’s world?” <br /> <br />Many studies suggest the world is getting warmer, which could trigger an increase in <br />consumptive use. In a warmer world, the same precipitation would result in lower stream <br />flows . Given that there is a lot of confusion over what will happen in the future, how <br />might or should we adjust our assumptions? <br /> <br />Question 2. <br /> Should we approach full development of the Colorado River from a firm <br />yield or average yield basis? For planning purposes, Denver Water looks at the 1953 to <br />1956 drought, and analyzes the ability of their system to make water deliveries to <br />customers under those conditions. Denver uses a firm yield approach, because they need <br />to make sure all of their customers get water, even in a drought. Other systems use <br />different time periods for planning. <br /> <br />The rationale behind using firm yield is that we can be safe, and deliver water through a <br />reason ably dry period. However, average yield takes advantage of times when there is a <br />lot of water, and doesn’t leave any on the table. It would be helpful for IBCC members <br />to have conversations with the roundtables about these issues, and get their perspecti ves. <br /> <br />Question 3. <br /> How do we approach full development from the interstate compact <br />perspective? The 1922 Compact helped avoid application of the appropriation doctrine <br />on an interstate basis. The negotiators knew the Supreme Court had looked at the iss ue <br />of adjacent states sharing water, and upper basin states worried that if their development <br />had to compete on the basis of priority with California or other states, which have large <br />rights already in place, there would be no water left for future develop ment in the upper <br />basin. The Compact allowed development independent of priority in the lower basin. <br /> <br />Is the appropriation doctrine the way to reach full development of the resource in <br />Colorado? Are we headed toward a series of intrastate compacts betw een the four major <br />basins in Colorado that contribute to the Colorado River and the Front Range, or do you <br />allow the appropriation doctrine to control? Do we need to know how a Compact call <br />would be administered within the state? Kuhn advised the Colorad o River Water <br />Conservation District that the answer is yes – the only way to assess the risk of <br />development and over development is to know how a Compact call should it occur would <br />be administered. Going back to the second question, using the firm yield a pproach would <br />lead to rare compact calls. The average yield system would probably make calls more <br />frequent. <br /> <br />Kuhn concluded by expressing the view that transparency is critical, and these three big - picture <br />issues need to be discussed with the Roundtable s. <br /> <br />Rick Brown, Intrastate Water Development & Management Section Chief at CWCB, provided <br />an observation regarding Colorado’s approach in interstate negotiations. He clarified that the <br />Deleted: regarding Colorado ’s <br />positions taken by the State in Com pact discussions were designed to protect the State’s ability <br />Deleted: <br />in interstate <br />to use the maximum amount of water legally allowed under the Compact, in order to give those <br /> <br />10 <br />