Laserfiche WebLink
3.3. Process for Addressing Compact Issues. <br />One of the great difficulties Guru II knew it was facing was that many of the decisions or <br />recommendations it might make with regard to a specific CWCB decision or federal directive <br />would inevitably have an effect on much broader-scale water rights issues, such as Colorado's <br />ability to develop its compact apportionment; and that conversely, long-term settlement of currently <br />unresolved compact issues will inevitably have some impact on the ultimate success of the RIP. <br />However, the group also recognized the practical impossibility of waiting for long-term resolution <br />of major compact issues before addressing the problems before them. The remaining question for <br />the group was "What do we do in the meantime?" <br />The group's answer to that question was to adopt the following four-step process for <br />addressing potential conflicts between full compact development and instream flows needed for <br />endangered fish. <br />3.3.1. Steps for the Resolr~tion of Conflicts Between Compact Development <br />and Instream Flow Protection for Endangered Fish. <br />Step 1. Quantification. Identify Colorado's compact apportionment on <br />stream-by-stream basis as well as its any stream-specific delivery <br />requirements that may exist. <br />Step 2. Interim Instream Flow Protection Possibilities. Until <br />Step 1 is completed, identify what instream flow protection is possible. <br />There is a concern that instream water rights secured under the Recovery <br />Program will implicitly allocate compact apportionment flows among <br />tributaries. <br />• <br />3-8 <br />