Laserfiche WebLink
r~ <br />m ic'~y ~O ~ <br />~ o i~ <br />~~ ~~ J <br />v ~~ <br />`'. Does Colorado law allow the conversion of conditional water rights to <br />absolute instream flow rights? <br />13. Under what circumstances will CWCB be a party to the lease of water <br />(storage or direct flow) for instream flow purposes? <br />14. When does a water right decree allow a release of stored water for instream <br />use to be protected from diversion? (Both federal and non-federal reservoirs <br />should be considered.) Must the Board hold some interest in the storage <br />release to protect it from being diverted? Issues include decreed beneficial <br />uses and "Judge Brown" rights. <br />15. What assurances do the FWS and Recovery Program need that instream flow <br />rights will be protected under State law? Are these assurances an <br />impediment to obtaining rights for instream flows? <br />16. Assuming that the Salinity Control Program or other actions produce salvage <br />or saved water in the Grand Valley, are there impediments to use of that <br />water for the benefit of endangered fish? (e.g. (1) with state law; (2) other <br />institutional impediments? <br />17. Do the authorizing laws for federal reservoirs impede the use of water stored <br />in these reservoirs for endangered fish? <br />18. Is "sufficient progress" issue an impediment to protecting flows? Or, is <br />• protection of flows in timely enough manner to allow new federal actions to <br />go forward? <br />19. What happens when competing fishery instrument flow rights (sport vs. <br />endangered fish) comes before CWCB? <br />20. Is the perceived lack of progress and emphasis in other aspects of R.I.P. an <br />impediment? <br />21. Is the perceived inadequacy of recovery goals an impediment? <br />22. How will other R.I.P. parties (including the Bur. Rec.) deal with situations in <br />which it is not feasible to establish a relationship between flow and <br />population and/or habitat? <br />23. CWCB criteria for acquisition of rights unclear. No recipe. Lack of planning <br />standards. Lack of substantive/process clarity. Need to break new ground in <br />reference to state water law and policy. No precedent. <br />24. Is the lack of grassroots constituency support within agencies and among <br />public an impediment? <br />25. Complexity of interpreting biological data vs. engineering data (technical, <br />cultural clash.) <br />~J <br />2 8 2 2 <br />4 3 4 3 <br />3 5 5 1 <br />7 3 3 1 <br />4 2 8 <br />5 2 6 1 <br />5 8 1 <br />1 3 4 6 <br />7 4 1 2 <br />5 8 2 <br />6 1 5 2 <br />5 5 3 1 <br />6 1 4 3 <br />9 2 2 1 <br />3 <br />