Laserfiche WebLink
4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS <br />• <br />4.l Conclusions. <br />In reviewing the deliberations and progress of GURU iI, it might be useful to evaluate the <br />process and the outcomes in terms of those factors that seemed to work in favor of a positive <br />outcome and those that militated against. <br />4.2. Factors That Made Progress Difficult <br />4.2.1.' Technical and Legal Complexity. It was obvious at the outset of this <br />endeavor that many forces were at play that would render progress towazd a wise outcome <br />supported by a strong consensus quite difficult. The GURU II issues are technically and legally <br />v~ complex and time consuming, and may ultimately require resolution by policy makers and <br />managers. <br />• Colorado water law, based upon the doctrine of prior appropriation, and interpreted richly <br />through one hundred yeazs of case law, is highly specialized. The fundamental legal complexity <br />was further compounded by the fact that, as regazds the possible appropriation of interim instream <br />flows for endangered fish species, GURU II was blazing new territory and speculating on the <br />establishment of new legal precedent. <br />4.2.2.- Technical Uncertainties/Methodology Problem. In addition to the legal <br />complexities, GURU II had to grapple with highly technical biological and engineering issues. <br />This set up one of the enduring difficulties of the GURU II project and that was what some <br />perceived as a clash between the engineering and. the biological disciplines. This clash became <br />most evident, and most contentious, as regards the basis upon which instream flow protection <br />might be granted by the Colorado Water Conservation Board. Some biologists have asserted that <br />empirical biological data and their professional judgements about it may be the "best science", <br />• 41 <br />