16-h

• Board Meeting Date: 11/14/2007
• Description: CF Section - En-bloc Non-Reimbursable Investment Recommendations - Colorado River Curtailment Studies
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

Agenda Item 16h
Novemixr 14-! 5, ?007 Board Meeting
Page 2 of 2
1) 'Thorough Icgal research. T}tc Dcfcnse of the Colorado River subunit in the Attorney
General's ofTcc ("AGO") has started on this, inclose consultation with the SEO and C: WCB
Staff.
2) Factual information. Water right locations and uses combined with hydrologic
infornation and modeling of curtaihnertt options can inform the rule-rnaking process by giving
the SFO an idea of the different impacts, the severity of impacts, and different approaches to the
rules.
3) Water user involvement. The SEO contemplates a series of meetings in order to
inform water users and fine-tune any proposed rules. 14'hile this is an important step, the legal
artd factual steps are needed in order to create iiraft rules or e',•en concepts for nil es for water user
comntcnt.
"i'his request for funding addresses the need for factual and hydrologic information. As
noted, ntodcling and other information can give the SEO an idea of the severity of impacts from
different curtailment rule approaches, assisting the SEO in choosing between viable approaches.
1t can help focus legal research, indicating which legal questions have the greatest impact.
Finally, it can inform water user im'oh•cment, perhaps quieting fears about disproportionate ar
severe irnpacts on different users.
.Accordingly, we propose a modeling study to cxatttine the following variables:
I. Amount of curtailment required (Information from Colorado River Water
Availability Study will be used);
[l. Definition of "present perfected right" uneier the Compacts and the location of
those water rights:
II1. V4'hich stntctures may be subject to rules;
IV. Which curtailment approach might he used. Suggested approaches include:
A. Strict priority administration;
B. Administration by sub-basins;
C'. Anticipatory curtailment; or
D. Preference of particular uses.
The details of the study can be fleshed out over the coming months in further discussions
between (`WCB Staff, the SEO, and the AGO. This rough outline is submitted in part simply
due to time constraints. In addition, because litigation is likely, both over curtailment rules
within Colorado, and between the states of the Colorado River Basin, the Board may want to
consider keeping details of the study, particularly legal reasoning behind certain assumptions,
confidential. .Along the same line, it should be noted that neither the listing nor the study of a
particular scheme for compact curtailment indicates an}' acceptance of the legality or wisdom of
that approach by the state of Colorado. .As we note above, this engineering study and legal
research will ideally proceed on parallel tracks. Results of this proposed engineering study may
give priority to particular legal yuestions; conversely, results of the legal research tray' give focus
to parts of the engineering study, but neither has happened yet.
5iaff Recommendation
Staff recommends the Board request that the General Assembly authorize up to $500,000
from the C.'onstruction Fund to he appropriated to the CWCB for the study of alternative
methods for curtailing Colorado River water use.
Fluud Pe~>cerz:on • w'atrr Pre:jec~ Planning and l~tnance • Stream and l.alce PmatYion
w.ttcr Suppl.o Protection • Consmaooa Planning