My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9450
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
9450
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:35 PM
Creation date
5/20/2009 11:01:02 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
9450
Author
Land and Water Fund of the Rockies.
Title
Gunnison Basin Water
USFW Year
2003.
USFW - Doc Type
No Panacea for the Front Range.
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
84
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
Moving Blue Mesa's Marketable Yield: A <br />tion inflow. As a result, it was believed then that the long-term average water supply <br />at the bottom of the Upper Colorado Basin, Lee Ferry, was greater than 15 million <br />acre-feet (MAF) and that there would be at least 7.5 MAF available for use in the. <br />Upper Basin on an average annual basis.99 At the same time, it was estimated that <br />there was at least enough water originating in the Lower Basin to satisfy the Mexican <br />Treaty obligation to deliver 1.5 MAF and satisfy an additional 1.0 MAF of annual con- <br />sumptive use in the Lower Basin. Under these assumptions, Colorado would have as <br />much as 3.8 MAF of annual consumptive use available."' <br />It is now apparent that long-term water supply conditions were greatly overes- <br />timated in 1922. The average annual water supply at Lee Ferry is considerably less <br />than 15 MAF. A new hydrologic determination conducted by the Bureau in 1988 <br />found that there were only 6.0 MAF available to the Upper Basin states."' This esti- <br />mate entitles Colorado to use less than 3.1 MAF. In the words of a workgroup that <br />looked closely at the subject, Colorado "needs to be aware that it could be taking sig- <br />nificant [legal] risks if it makes extended use of more than 3.079 MAF annually. 11102 <br />The workgroup referenced above, called the Endangered Fish Flow and <br />Colorado River Compact Water Development Workgroup, was assembled by the <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board ("CWCB"). The CWCB hoped the Workgroup <br />would provide "input on how much water can be appropriated for endangered fish <br />recovery instream flow purposes within the various [Colorado River] sub-basins ... <br />without impairing Colorado's ability to fully develop its compact apportioned <br />waters."'°' This workgroup determined Colorado's current consumptive uses and <br />remaining, undeveloped entitlement from the Colorado River. '°' Taking data on <br />water use from the years 1981-1985, it found the current average annual consump- <br />tive use of Colorado River water was 2.3 MAF and the maximum use was 2.6 MAF. <br />Thus, considering the lowered entitlement estimate, the range of what Colorado has <br />left to develop runs from a minimum of 450,000 AF to a maximum of 1.5 MAE"' <br />The workgroup then recommended an approach that distributed Colorado's <br />remaining Compact apportionment among the State's tributary basins using the <br />ranges above. After distributing the state's apportionment surplus among the seven <br />major sub-basins according to each sub-basin's contribution to the natural flow of the <br />Colorado River, it estimated future water development capacities for each sub-basin. <br />Based on this scheme, it found the upper limit on future development in the <br />Gunnison to be 225,213 AF and the lower limit to be 99,227,'°1 with the remainder of <br />the river's 1.8 MAF annual discharge needed to meet downstream delivery require- <br />ments. <br />Under this approach, even if we assumed away all of the many other uses of <br />Aspinall water that compete for its yield, there is a maximum of 225,213 AF available <br />for consumptive use out of Aspinall's marketable yield. Adopting a conservative and <br />prudent approach, strongly suggested by the drought, would establish a marketable <br />yield far lower. And, of course, there are other uses competing for this water, includ- <br />ing the in-stream uses for endangered fish and Black Canyon National Park, as well as <br />hydropower and future in-basin development. <br />• 28 • The Land and Water Fund of the Rockies
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.