Laserfiche WebLink
Section 4 <br />Delineating and Prioritizing Colorado's Environmental and Recreational Resources and Needs <br />At the first meeting, the following questions were <br />determined as priorities for the Environment and <br />Recreation TRT to address throughout the process. <br />Technical <br />1. What are the examples of projects (or <br />programs) that benefit multiple users that could <br />serve as a model for the state? <br />2. Can we develop geographic coverages of <br />environment and recreation attributes that <br />would help basins prioritize key river and <br />wetland resources? <br />How can Conserve, Protect, and Restore <br />priorities be implemented and integrated into a <br />prioritization process and how might that <br />process interface with CW CB's Instream Flow <br />(ISF) Program? <br />Financial <br />1. What are sources of funding and payment for <br />projects that enhance environment and <br />recreation? <br />Legal/VNater Rights/Institutional/Political <br />1. Can incentives be developed for entities to <br />donate their water rights for instream or <br />recreational uses? <br />What are other legal changes that need to <br />occur to protect water-related environment <br />and recreational uses? <br />What incentives can be developed to <br />encourage entities to donate their water <br />rights? <br />2. How can an acceptable balance be achieved <br />between competition for the same sources of <br />water with existing uses such as agricultural <br />and municipal and industrial (M~eI)? <br />3. Can a prioritization scheme be developed where <br />there is consideration of environment and <br />recreation needs, M~eI needs, and agricultural <br />needs? <br />As the TRT began to look at approaches to <br />addressing these complex questions, a diverse set of <br />views and opinions were expressed TRT members <br />recognized the value of answering the questions but <br />also realized that in some cases it was difficult to <br />obtain consensus on the approach and/or there was <br />a low probability of obtaining a definitive answer. <br />Consequently the TRT chose to focus on Technical <br />Questions 1-3, Financial Question 1, and for the <br />Legal/Water Rights/ Institutional/Political Question <br />concluded that they would like to primarily focus on <br />the legal mechanisms and tools that can be used for <br />environmental and recreational flow needs and <br />summarized collaborative case studies. <br />Comments on the initial draft report by TRT <br />members can be found in Appendix C. Several TRT <br />members raised critiques of the report regarding the <br />tenure and perceived conflict they felt was being <br />portrayed between consumptive uses of water and <br />environmental and recreational uses of water. The <br />four questions that the TRT choose not to address <br />hits at the heart of this conflict. Potential conflicts <br />do appear to exist and fully addressing <br />quantification of environmental and recreational <br />uses of water will require resolution of those issues <br />raised by these questions. <br />Formation of Subcommittees <br />The TRT formed subcommittees to address the <br />questions chosen by the TRT. Figure 4-2 shows the <br />subcommittee members. <br />4-4 FINAL DRAFT <br />