Laserfiche WebLink
(C) possible conflict between Colorado's ability to develop its compact <br />apportionment and the preservation of fish habitat in the 15-mile reach of the <br />Colorado River and the Yampa River; and <br />(D) possible conflict between Colorado's ability to develop its compact <br />apportionment and conversion of Juniper-Cross Mountain rights to instream flow <br />rights? <br />"Sufficient Progress" As Possible Impediment to Protecting Flows. <br />Can flows be protected in timely enough manner to allow planning and work on <br />water projects to go forward? Can recovery goals be sufficiently defined to allow <br />for more timely "sufficient progress" decision making? <br />Lack of Grassroots Constituency Support Within Agencies and <br />Among Public. How can stakeholders build sufficient support among <br />government agency personnel and among affected publics to ensure that RIP <br />performance is effective, efficient, and expeditious? <br />3.2.2.2. Category II ("Work on Next"). <br />Previous CWCB Decisions. How should stakeholders resolve situations in <br />which precedent established in previous decisions (e.g., Blue River case or <br />conditional water rights policies) may create a barrier to protecting flows for fish <br />population recovery? <br />`Physically and Legally Available' Requirement. How should <br />stakeholders and the CWCB address the impact of this requirement or the method <br />of its determination on the protection of instream flows? <br />3-4 <br />