My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Minutes May 2008 CBRT
CWCB
>
Basin Roundtables
>
DayForward
>
Minutes May 2008 CBRT
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 4:57:54 PM
Creation date
8/20/2008 4:44:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Basin Roundtables
Basin Roundtable
Colorado
Title
Colorado Minutes 5/08
Date
5/19/2008
Basin Roundtables - Doc Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
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
287,000-459,000 AF 100% Total expected conservation savings <br />Interruptible Supply Agreements (ISA) and Rotational Fallowing Arrangements (RFA) <br />offer the greatest potential agricultural savings. Statewide, agriculture consumes 85% of <br />the states water supplies. There are 1.6 nullion irrigated acres on the East Slope, and <br />880,000 irrigated acres on the West Slope. Western Slope agriculture traditionally uses <br />more water per acre than the Eastern Slope. Most West Slope irrigation rights have <br />priorities that are senior to the 1922 Colorado River compact. <br />4. If Colorado does not approve additional transbasin diversions to the Front Range, the gap <br />will just get larger. Sununit County Conunissioner Tom Long commented that Denver's <br />legal requirement to reuse transbasin diversions to extinction must be met before <br />additional transbasin diversions should occur. <br />Colorado needs to adopt a common methodology to quantify river flows. Site specific <br />studies are very expensive and time consuming. It will be problematic for Roundtables to <br />decide where to do quantification studies, and there will be a tradeoff between whether to <br />preserve river flows for particular uses such as fishing or rafting vs. leaving amounts in <br />every stream to meet critical flow levels. (See the April Roundtable minutes for a <br />discussion of critical flow levels on the Colorado River and Muddy Creels by Grand <br />County consultants Peggy Bailey, P.E., and Thomas A. Wesche, PhD.) <br />6. We have no facts to backup the Yampa pumpback or the Flaming Gorge pumpback, just <br />opinions about whether or not to do them. <br />7. We will never have all the information we need to make decisions; there will always be <br />uncertainty. <br />Rick Brown agreed with Aspen Water Engineer Plul Overeynder's comment that East <br />and West Slope cooperation will improve if there is a referee who can manage the <br />negotiations, and if both sides adopt a list of best practices such as: <br />a. Reuse water to extinction. <br />b. Coordinate releases and diversions to maintain critical flows or to optimize flows for <br />rafting and recreation whenever possible. <br />c. Take the time reasonably necessary to collect information about rivers and then freely <br />share that information before making decisions that have long term effects on rivers. <br />d. Conserve water whenever feasible. <br />16. Stan Cazier mentioned that the CWCB is working on a proposal to revise Rule 8(e), the <br />definition of Instream Flow. <br />I:AInterbasin Compact Cominittee~Basin Roundtables\Colorado~Minutes~2008~Minutes Mav 2008 CBRT.doc 5 g~2~ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.