Laserfiche WebLink
:- 6 <br />of water use verses the recovery of the fish (from a broad basin-wide <br />management perspective) the answer is "yes". Windy Gap's proportion- <br />ate share of the costs of the 20 million dollar conservation (manage- <br />ment) plan could have been determined in one of three ways: <br />(1) Ratio of Windy Gap's water depletion to remaining water in the <br />basin. This implies that all of the water left in the basin <br />can be utilized, so it was rejected. <br />(2) Ratio of Windy Gap's water depletion to that amount of remain- <br />. ing water in the basin that can be utilized without destroying <br />the recovery process of the fish. Since we do not know how much <br />(if any) remaining water can be safely utilized, this idea was <br />rejected also. <br />~~ <br />(3) Ratio of Windy Gap's water depletion to amount of current deple- <br />•. tion in the basin. This implies that since the current depletion• <br />has caused decline of the fishes, then increased water use within <br />the basin will further the decline. Therefore, the amount of <br />.~ <br />compensation would be directly proportional to the percentage of <br />depletion increase. This was selected as the most appropriate <br />method of computation.. <br />The Colorado River at Cisco, Utah, gage was selected as the location at <br />which to compute current depleti:on$. Tbi:s site wds selected because of <br />its.long gage history (contjnuous record dates back to 1895) and its <br />location near areas known to be inhabited by endangered fishes. <br /> <br />