Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-2- <br />essential step in deciding if Colorado could support extending the C;A (currently the CA expires July • <br />30, 2003). In general the meetings where constructive and most of the parties agreed with our <br />concerns and voiced support for Colorado. However, it is important to emphasize that the Service <br />and the Environmental interests was very concerned that Colorado not leave the negotiations and <br />they both very much support a three state effort. <br />Following is a short summary of the Colorado's recommendations and key concerns: <br />The GC must focus on resolving critical issues and develop a specific timeline for resolution <br />of those issues. <br />Since the signing of the C.A., circumstances have changed significantly due to new <br />information and uncertainties concerning the lack of sediment, attenuated peak flows, and the <br />"choke point" on the North Platte River. In response to these issues, - Lake McConaughy <br />must be made available to participate now, at the end of the Program's 1 st Increment, and in <br />to the future. <br />"Excesses to target flows" must be defined as they relate to the 1997 baseline, with proper <br />recognition of non-tributary and transbasin accretions and of subsequent depletions in the <br />individual states. <br />Nebraska has said that it must be compensated for impacts to Lake McConaughy and other <br />water users in Nebraska that might occur by water development in Colorado, if there is going • <br />to be a Program. Colorado will not use this process to rewrite the South Platte River <br />Compact. Agreeing to give Nebraska this type of "super" water right is not permitted by the <br />Compact. Colorado does not support any claims of injury to Nebraska's surface right holders <br />or instream flow requirements from administering water rights in Colorado under Colorado <br />Water Law. <br />Colorado considers pre-1997 surface water rights and augmentation plans for pre-1997 <br />ground water rights (required by Colorado Water Law for the in-state administration of water <br />rights), including post-1997 re-regulation and storage, to be existing depletions and part of <br />the 1997 baseline, so long as these depletions do not result in irrigating more acreage. <br />The micro-examination of issues concerning the states' proposed water contributions, <br />including Tamarack I and III, must stop. Development of the Program will become <br />gridlocked if the states are not given the opportunity to succeed or fail with the plans they <br />have proposed and plan to implement. Ultimately each state will have to demonstrate their <br />plans success through implementation and reporting. <br />The C.A. and proposed Program were predicated on FWS species and annual pulse flow <br />criteria (target flows). More recently, the FWS has alleged that other flows may also be <br />important. These recently identified flow considerations could have an adverse affect on <br />excesses needed for operation of Program water conservation/supply projects and future <br />depletion plans, as well as water available to states under equitable apportionment decrees • <br />and compacts. <br />Flood Protection • Water Project Plannutg and Financing • Streami and Lake Protection <br />Water Supply Protection • Conservation Planning