C.R.C.P. 26(a)(2) Disclosures of The CWCB, Case No. 02CW38

Home Browse Search

achieved as referenced in C.R.S. § 37 -92 -102 (1)(a). 4.5 Factors in CWCB RICD Rule 7 (a), as to Whether the Adjudication and Administration of the Claimed Water Right Will Impair the Ability of Colorado to Fully Develop and Place to Consumptive Beneficial Use Its Compact Entitlement In addition to the discussion above, I have considered the factors in Rule 7 (a) of the Recreational In- Channel Diversion Rules as adopted by the Colorado Water Conservation Board on November 8, 2001. My opinions concerning these factors are as follows. 4.5.1. The amount and location of remaining unappropriated Compact Entitlement waters in the basin in question and at the RICD point of diversion. As discussed above, Colorado's entitlement in the Colorado River Basin is not apportioned among sub : �asins of the Colorado River in Colorado. There is not a separate allocation to • the Gunnison River Basin. Subject to specific subbasin apportionments, Colorado may develop its entitlement in any subbasin in the state. Approximately 450,000 af/yr, and potentially up to 1.227 maf/yr, are available for development on an average basis in Colorado under the "Law of the River." This amount of water is arguably available for development in basins other than the Upper Gunnison Basin above the proposed RICD water right. However, one can look at the relative stability of our current consumptive uses and observe that new water development is very slow to occur. This is because new users prefer the certainty that goes with acquiring more senior water rights. Therefore, projects that provide greater certainty are preferable and projects as proposed by the Colorado Water Resources and Power Authority are more desirable than many other . { alternatives. If you assume there can be no further development opportunity in the Upper Gunnison Basin above the proposed RICD water right, Colorado's ability to develop its entitlement is impaired to some degree and at the very least would come at considerable greater expense. While the proposed RICD water right will not affect any development opportunity downstream in the Gunnison River Basin, development opportunities with respect to junior water rights upstream will be subject to call by the proposed RICD water right. The proposed RICD water right will affect exchanges of water from the marketable pool in the Aspinall Unit upstream to any proposed transmountain water diversion projects to the Eastern Slope of Colorado. Until the State completes the "SWSI" currently in- progress, we do not know for certain if there are other viable development opportunities in other basins in Colorado that could result in full development of Colorado's entitlement, with equal or greater probability of development as upstream exchanges of water from the Aspinall marketable pool to transbasin diversion projects in the Upper Gunnison Basin. While the Animas-La Plata project in southwest Colorado is under construction and the full utilization of unused capacity in . • existing projects can increase Colorado's consumptive use, full development of Colorado's compact entitlement will likely depend on at least one more significant transmountain diversion in my opinion. • 12 of 17