8279

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 8279
• Author: Brown and Caldwell.
• Title: Phase 1 Coordinated Facilities Water Availability Study for the Endangered Fishes of the Upper Colorado River.
• USFW Year: 2000.
• USFW - Doc Type: \
• Copyright Material: NO

• Bypassed diversions to storage would be credited toward a "paper fill" of the reservoir
and the reservoir would attempt to achieve a subsequent physical fill using a junior refill
right. This is essentially the administration agreed to by the SWAT team and used to
decree the Clinton Gulch, Green Mountain and Dillon refills.
• Bypassed diversions to storage would not be credited toward a paper fill under an
administrative policy that such bypasses are regulatory in nature and the reservoir would
attempt to fill later under its own priority.
• Bypassed diversions to storage would not be administered toward a paper fill of the
reservoir, but would be administered in Division 5 only, and under the PBO, as a
regulatory bypass that would not count against the fill of the reservoir.
This matter has been discussed with the State Engineer (James Lochhead personal
communication with Hal Simpson, February 15, 2000) with the following outcome:
• These three potential administration policies will be further analyzed and included in the
modeling studies that will be completed as part of the various alternatives in Phase 2 of
this investigation. The effect of change in administration and using a junior refill right
will be modeled by assigning a junior priority date to the particular facility one day junior
to the applicable storage right. The facility will then continue its fill under that right after
the primary storage right has been accounted as "full." The sensitivity analysis will be
made by comparing this operation to a model run without the assigned junior priority.
• The various alternatives that involve bypassing diversions to storage should be modeled
with the alternative policies detailed above to determine the effects of the alternative
policies on other water rights and facility operations. Where possible, the costs
associated with these effects should be estimated.
• The results of these investigations and modeling studies should then be considered further
by the State Engineer in developing the administration policy that will be. used for
bypassed diversions.
2.2.2 No Restrictions on Alternatives Investigated
In this Phase 1 investigation, consideration of all alternatives was permitted; no alternatives were
summarily eliminated from investigation solely because of stakeholder opposition.
The focus of the alternatives is primarily on the reoperation of water management and storage
facilities located within the Upper Colorado River Basin, the interrelated hydropower operations
of east and west slope facilities, and the construction of new facilities, in order to determine the
feasibility of obtaining water for the endangered fishes from these sources in accordance with the
original scope of work for this investigation (Colorado Water Conservation Board, October 2,
1998). Improved conveyance facilities and efficiencies were considered with respect to canals,
but actual on-farm practices were not considered as an alternative to be investigated by this
study.
p:\data\gen\0cwcb\18133\report\phase-1\chap-2.doc 2-2

n
L

L