|
• ♦ T
<br />August 15 2006 The Water Report
<br />Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
<br />Historic Daily Streamflow in ACRE FEET
<br />911.00 866.00 962.69 2,724.41 13,079.76 25,287.28 6,877.15 2,248.87 1,102.98 1,098.31 831.74 738.44
<br />465.18 685.06 1,346.48 3,890.29 10,727.44 11,188.86 9,227.09 5,712.12 1,276.38 598.12 1,150.62 491.18
<br />1,398.74 1,222.52 1,383.81 2,341.45 9,963.45 22,507.19 13,708.55 6,384.00 3,740.39 2,676.52 1,902.81 1,581.65
<br />504.17 443.67 668.83 1,931.33 11,452.33 12,964.17 3,246.17 1,254.67 983.58 896.67 628.83 556.67
<br />198.14 140.94 150.03 324.07 1,757.10 3,328.86 2,443.13 1,278.11 742.09 603.24 411.52 304.55
<br />782.08 677.76 810.94 1,417.74 5,882.28 11,781.06 5,686.72 2,036.28 1,454.50 1,286.08 985.72 870.74
<br />91.60 142.58 463.17 2 4,110.32 560.27 334.05 296.17 210.46 116.00 22.70
<br />2,910.37 3,383.50 8,523.27 14,838.24 32,290.46 58,892.94 39,830.59 24,309.35 8,883.35 6,643.49 5,678.68 3,086.77
<br />6,521.39 5,746.38 7,767.72 18,031.56 55,809.25 73,008.70 38,800.78 22,515.15 16,011.57 12,277.03 8,883.86 7,301.72
<br />3,110.83 2,902.93 5,183.97 19,406.79 53,187.91 53,297.52 11,064.79 4,632.65 3,292.89 4,160.43 3,797.53 3,238.96
<br />2,374.70
<br />2,196.28
<br />2,520.33
<br />3,760.57
<br />9,576.98
<br />20,858.72
<br />12,863.41
<br />7,333.35
<br />4,723.67
<br />3,746.91
<br />2,944.04
<br />2,625.27
<br />- 10,918.68
<br />9,765.36
<br />10,314.48
<br />11,470.64
<br />31,656.84
<br />60,945.36
<br />43,423.78
<br />26,428.11
<br />14,385.54
<br />12,391.50
<br />12,367.59
<br />11,705.34
<br />1,840.18
<br />1,588.71
<br />2,281.82
<br />6,830.65
<br />35,300.94
<br />44,966.47
<br />18,160.29
<br />6,757.12
<br />4,046.82
<br />3,338.18
<br />2,399.94
<br />1,990.35
<br />6,280.78
<br />5,808.62
<br />9,210.40
<br />25,223.19
<br />71,269.57
<br />84,227.66
<br />36,587.99
<br />17,846.39
<br />13,712.01
<br />12,625.58
<br />8,557.43
<br />6,868.94
<br />7,287.71
<br />6,116.43
<br />5,966.92
<br />10,121.75
<br />27,210.12
<br />42,632.50
<br />25,227.25
<br />15,394.00
<br />12,482.62
<br />11,455.86
<br />8,322.57
<br />7,637.86
<br />Copyright CC 2006 Envirotech Publications; Reproduction without permission strictly prohibited. 5
<br />Upon adjudication of the recreational in- channel water rights, the DWR is responsible for
<br />Oe�t`'C'cfttt#'b
<br />incorporating these rights into the priority system and the hydrologic nuances of each different stream
<br />}�;
<br />system in the daily water administration process. The ensuing narrative attempts to address the
<br />h
<br />predominant water administration issues that challenge water administration officials and water users.
<br />The first issue relates to resource allocation. Similar to other adjudicated water rights, an RICD
<br />imposes additional workload demands upon the State's water administration officials. It is important to
<br />�ilGifVf/
<br />recognize that, although new water rights may retain a junior water right priority, their value and ability
<br />k }L4
<br />tiCit1Q11
<br />to exercise demands for water delivery are not diminished - they retain equal significance to all other
<br />water rights and are afforded an equitable allocation of water administration service. The problem facing
<br />all water users is an increasing number of adjudicated water rights, often with higher levels of
<br />complexity, without a commensurate increase in personnel or operating funds necessary to adequately
<br />incorporate additional water rights in an already saturated water allocation system.
<br />The twin pillars of water allocation practice in Colorado are to maximize the beneficial consumptive
<br />Copyright CC 2006 Envirotech Publications; Reproduction without permission strictly prohibited. 5
<br />
|