My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC12544
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
1-1000
>
WSPC12544
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:16:47 PM
Creation date
8/2/2007 3:02:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8220.102.01.K
Description
CO River Basin Water Projects - Aspinall Unit - General - Section 7 Consultation-Biological Opinion
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
12/13/1999
Author
Unknown
Title
Future Depletion Estimates in the Upper Colorado River Basin 1999-2000 - RE-Gunnison PBO and Related Issues - 12-13-99 through 02-25-00
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Data
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />001102 <br /> <br />Scott Balcomb, Esq. <br />Upper Basin Depletion Schedule <br />December 13, 1999 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />1. By the year 2020, two Upper Basin states will be substantially developed, New <br />Mexico and Colorado, while the two other states, Utah and Wyoming, have a large <br />amount of unused apportionment. <br /> <br />a. How will this imbalance affect the relationship among the Upper Basin <br />states? Recognizing that Utah has been making noises about marketing to the <br />Lower Basin, how should Colorado respond? <br /> <br />b. What are the risks to Colorado ifit begins using Utah and Wyoming's unused <br />apportionment? <br /> <br />2, Between now (which is really 1995 on the schedule) and the year 2020 the Upper <br />Basin states are projected to increase depletions by about 600,000 a,f./year. At the <br />same time, California is asking the other states for a guarantee of surpluses through <br />the year 2015 (which could end up as 2020.when the negotiationslNEPA are <br />concluded). So, the Lower Basin demand will remain in the 8.0 million a.f.Iyear(:t) <br />range. If we were to enter into another period similar to 198-1992 (below average <br />flOws, but no one remembers this period as "drought"), how would this additional <br />million a.f/year (Plus) demand impact Upper Basin reservoir levels and water <br />supplies, or impact our flexibility to address ESA species recovery? You may want <br />the CWCB staff to utilize the interstate CRDSS capabilities, <br /> <br />3, How should Colorado as astate begin preparing for the era of full use ofits Colorado <br />River entitlement? Do any intrastate allocation plans need to be debated and put in <br />place? <br /> <br />4, If Colorado and New Mexico are going to be approaching individual state limits in <br />just a few decades ( a short time in the water business),. when should the Upper Basin <br />states get serious about addressing the key unresolved Colorado issues, such as basin- <br />wide accounting and a resolution of the Lower Basin tributary contribution to <br />Mexico? <br /> <br />REKJldp <br />Attachments <br />c: Peter Evans <br />Randy Seaholm <br />Greg Walcher <br />Kent Holsinger <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.