WSP12606 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i' ': . . . -4- I Colorado's compact enti<tlements could be impaired. In the present case, there are exchange opportunities that could bCCur from locations downstream ofthe RICD reach to points located upstream of the RICD reach (to loCations such as Turquoise Lake, Twin Lakes Reservoir, Clear Creek Reservoir, or the Otero pump statioh) but for the amounts claimed by the RICD. Future exchanges up to these reservoirs and this pipelihe are inevitable and should be considered by this Board, pursuant to RICD Rule 7.a.v. Pursuant to these considerations, the Staff recommends that the Board find, as a matter of fact, that the claimed floiv rates in the application would impair the ability of Colorado to fully develop and place to consumptive beneficial use its compact entitlements. I I Rule 7.a.iii ofthd RICD requires this Board to consider the proximity ofthe RICD to upstream I storage vessels. As this Board knows, additional storage is vital to Colorado's water future. As demonstrated by the SW~I study there is a 20% water resources shortfall, statewide, by the year 2030. Expansion of high altitude storage, and new high altitude storage must be considered as key elements to bridging any potential shprtfalls. As explained above, there are storage vessels located upstream of the RICD reach that could b~ expanded. Thus, the proposed application should be found to impair the ability of Colorado to ful~y develop and place to consumptive beneficial use its compact entitlements. i i Specifically related to the upper basin, the SWSI report indicates that there is a 1100 acre-feet I gap identified that exists for uses upstream of the RICD reach through the year 2030, with no identified sources of water after 2030 for additional development. (SWSI report, page 6-19). i . 2. Whether the RIen appropriation is for an appropriate reach of stream for the intended use. I The requested RICD is for two different reaches located approximately 25 miles apart from each other. In addition, the Buena Vista RICD segment includes one structure located 2000 feet upstream from three other proposed structures. RICD Rule 7.b.ii requires the Board to consider the length of the RICD segment. In the Staff's opinion, the appropriation for these separate segments with substantial distance between the segments, as a matter of fact, demonstrate that the application is not for an appropriate reach. Moreover, Colorado statutory law provides: "no other person or entity shall be granted a decree adjudicating aright to Jater or interests in water for instream flows in a stream charmel between specific points...for any Ipurpose whatsoever." Section 37-92-102(3), C.R.S. The factor related to "appropriate reach" was included in Senate Bill 216, in part, to assure that entities did not us(~ the RICD statute to violate this quoted statutory provision. Here, where the flows requested are for two different segments, located 25 milds apart, the granting of a decree as set forth in this application would have the effect of violating this statutory provision by allowing the Applicant to obtain an instreanlflow water right for a 25 mile reach. j 1 The requested RICD is located within a stretch of the Arkansas River that is subject to the Upper Arkansas V oluntan' Flow Management Program ("VFMP") for recreational benefits. This I . agreement has been in place for many years, and has demonstrated that it can provide recreational flows, and protect existing water rights, with little or no conflict. This agreement has been recognized as a model agreement for protecting a variety of recreational opportunities without significantly impacting the ability ofw~ter resource managers to provide water resources to water users. Thus, this is not an appropriate reach of stream for the intended use. i I I Flood Protection. Water Project Planning and Finance. Stream and Lake Protection Water Supply Protection. Conservation Planning