9354

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 9354
• Author: Zallen, M.
• Title: Protection of Instream Flows for Endangered Colorado River Fishes in Colorado.
• USFW Year: 1990
• USFW - Doc Type: Denver.
• Copyright Material: NO

question is how to deal with protecting water saved by
irrigation efficiency, a problem Governor Romer has
requested be solved.
2. In contrast to the above discussion, the February 21,
1990, agreement between the Colorado Water Conservation
Board and the Department of the Interior is the sole
success, to date, in delivering and protecting wet water
in the 15-mile reach for the endangered fishes. In this
agreement, the BOR leased water to the Board for its use
for instream flow purposes through the 15-mile reach. In
the 2-1/2 years of negotiations, we discussed and
discarded numerous alternative approaches to protecting
releases from the Ruedi Reservoir to offset the impacts of
a water sale that were agreed to as part of a biological
opinion issued in June 1987. That opinion was developed
during the same years that the Program was being written,
and is consistent with its approach. The opinion held
that the water sale would jeopardize the continued
existence of an endangered fish and that 10,000 acre-feet
of water should be released in the summer to offset the
impact the sale would have on the fish. An important
provision of the opinion was that the BOR had agreed that
no water was to be delivered from the Ruedi water sale
until the flow releases were legally protected in the 15-
mile reach.
a. Among the alternative approaches considered were:
(1) the Board file for a new appropriation for an
instream flow right for all the water needed by the
fishes and use the 10,000 acre-feet releases to
augment this right;
(2) the Board file for a new instream flow right for
10,000 acre-feet for a 3-month period of time;
(3) the Board file for 3-month instream flow for the
maximum amount of water the FWS would request to be
released over a 30-day period (168 c.f.s.); and
(4) the BOR lease water to the Board.
b. In order to meet the United States' requirement
that any right be enforceable by the United States as
well as the state, it was agreed that the only
alternative available under Colorado law would be the
lease alternative. The Board is limited by Colorado
law as to when it can agree to another party enforcing
instream flow protections; the entity desiring to have
enforcement authority must have an ownership interest
in the water it desires to protect. Under Colorado
7