7921 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(2) Quantification of flow necessary for preserving that environment to a reasonable degree--DOW staff then makes a determination of the quantity of water necessary to accomplish this objective, using one or more standarized field methodologies to evaluate the physical characteristics and habitat necessary to sustain fish and benthic invertebrate survival and reproduction, and fish passage during low-flow periods. The minimum required streamflow is then determined based on three principal criteria: mean depth, mean velocity, and wetted perimeter. These criteria are combined with other hydraulic parameters, and streamflows necessary for maintaining a fishery habitat are determined with the application of a computer program. Additional modifications and refinements may be made by expert judgement of DOW fish biologists. (3) Description of Reach of Stream to be included in the Right--Follow- ing the factors described in 1 and 2, the stream reach is described by landmarks and legal description. Preliminary considerations for natural lake level findings follow a similar procedure. Evaluation Under Colorado's original instream flow law and its subsequent amendments, CWCB has been successful in appropriating instream flows and natural lake 1 eve 1 water ri ghts throughout the State, over the 1 ast thi rteen years. The approach used by CWCB has resulted in protection of instream flows of priority stream segments. The adminstrative procedure that CWCB follows has been carefully identified and allows for maximum public input prior to CWCB seeking instream flow rights. CWCB Public Notice Prior to Filing Crit i cs of CWCB imp 1 ementat i on of the i nstream flow program statutes point out that the law does not require CWCB to give preliminary and final notice to the public that certain streams segments are being considered for appropriation of water prior to actual filing for a water right. These critics argue that giving preliminary and final notice prior to filing allows others on the affected segment to file before CWCB and obtain a water right that is senior to CWCB's. This could have the effect of pre-empting the objectives of the instream flow program on critical segments where the exercise of old and new private appropriations, senior to those filed for by the CWCB, could result in denial of an appropriation for instream flow purposes. These objectives might be defended because the stream could be over-appropriated, or the State would provide a less valuable junior right that is of little utility for protecting the natural environment to a reasonable degree during water- short years. The contrasting view of the current administrative procedure for recom- mending and filing for instream flows is that prior notice to the public is necessary to resolve objections to the recommended filings prior to actions in the water court. This is perceived by supporters of the current approach to minimize costly administrative, technical, and legal costs to the State and 25