Laserfiche WebLink
COLORADO RIVER COMPACT WATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECTION <br />November 2, 1995 FINAL REPORT <br />Page 16 <br />junior CWCB instream flow right, although we assume that any changes of senior water rights <br />(e.g., changes in use, point of diversion, etc.) will conform to the "no injury" standard with <br />respect to the CWCB's instream flow rights and all other water rights. It is understood that in <br />conforming to the "no injury" standard some additional limitations may be placed on the <br />ability to change water rights. <br />E. The hydrologic information provided by the CWCB staff only includes waters <br />which originate in Colorado and thus water from the Little Snake in Wyoming (200,000+ AF) <br />and certain flows tributary to the San Juan in New Mexico (approximately 180,000 AF) are <br />not included in the hydrology used to evaluate the various alternatives. There was not total <br />agreement on this approach, but it was agreed that this was a conservative approach which <br />avoided the need to make assumptions about what might or might not occur in our <br />neighboring states. <br />F. We have not advocated the construction of any particular water project, nor should <br />our recommendations prevent the development of any water project; we have been as neutral <br />as possible in this regard. <br />G. Given the numerous uncertainties which exist, we do not recommend the <br />appropriation of all the waters available for appropriation within any basin for instream flow <br />protection without carving out or otherwise protecting a development allowance adequate to <br />assure the flexibility to continue developing Colorado's water supplies in a responsible <br />manner. Given the relative size of Colorado's compact apportionment (3.079 to 3.855 MAF) <br />in comparison to the overall flows of the Colorado River originating in Colorado (10.797 <br />MAF), it seems that there should still be adequate flows which the CWCB can protect under <br />instream flow water rights to assist in the recovery of the endangered fish. The total instream <br />flow appropriations suggested in Table 4 are no greater on average than will flow out of state <br />under the compacts. The more significant challenge will be in arriving at monthly or daily <br />distributions for these annual amounts which protect both water development opportunities <br />and the needs of the endangered fish given the variable hydrology which occurs both annually <br />and seasonally. Also, the structure and format of the water right application will be <br />important, particularly in light of the recent decision in the Aspen Wilderness Workshop, Inc. <br />v. The Colorado Water Conservation Board (Snowmass Creek Case). <br />H. Our recommended approach does not foreclose any reasonable development <br />opportunities within Colorado's compact apportionment. As suggested in the CWCB's <br />Statement of Policy and Procedure, it presumes that within the time it will take to fully <br />develop the recommended range of new consumptive uses, new information about the <br />endangered fish will become available such that the CWCB and others will find it necessary <br />to reevaluate the situation and the state's needs. The open process employed in assembling <br />these recommendations, facilitated through the support of the CWCB's staff and others, is <br />helpful in promoting the use of the best information available and enabling a diverse group of <br />interested parties to participate in policy formulation. However, there are limits to what can <br />be expected from a group representing statewide interests, and the organization of similar <br />groups within the principal subbasins should also be pursued in order to fine tune the <br />information. <br />