Laserfiche WebLink
priority date assigned to the aggregated class. In the model operation, this would imply that the <br />entire class would either be completely in or completely out of priority, when in fact, individual <br />rights within the group should be able to retain their ability to divert pursuant to their own priorities. <br />The same concern exists if the calling priority is the same as the weighted class priority, meaning <br />that some rights within the class would be improperly shorted and others would receive a benefit that <br />they are not entitled to. If these situations were to occur, it may be possible to further subdivide a <br />given priority class, but that would require significant additional effort and could not be readily <br />implemented by the CRDSS interface. <br />3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS <br />Given the time and budget constraints of the CRDSS, it is the preliminary recommendation that for <br />each river basin, a number of the small and non-critical water rights be "left in the gage" and not <br />specifically included in the water rights planning model. It is suggested that this be accomplished in <br />two steps. The initial step would be to work with the division engineers, water commissioners, and <br />water users to establish a threshold flow rate (and storage level) that would address the numerous <br />small water rights that do not have a major depletive effect in the basin. The second step would be to <br />identify larger water rights that all parties agree are highly unlikely to change in the future in order to <br />significantly influence water resource planning issues in the river basins. These could also be <br />included in the "baseline" flow, i.e., left in the gage. <br />It is further recommended that once it has been determined which water rights should be left in the <br />gage, that some of the remaining water rights might be aggregated into manageable working classes, <br />similar to the principles used in the Gunnison River basin model. <br />These issues are highly sensitive to the requirements of the water user community and need to be <br />thoroughly discussed by the technical subcommittee before finalizing any approach. It is therefore <br />recommended that this issue be addressed as a high priority subtask in the initial stages of the Phase <br />II work. <br />3 <br />A275 05.10.94 1.15-10 Fosha, Hyre <br />