Laserfiche WebLink
• Water rights acquisition or appropriation: Purchasing senior water rights as a basis for an <br />instream flow water right was tried (Juniper -Cross Mountain), but met significant opposition <br />from water users. Its subordination to junior rights greatly reduced its value for instream flow <br />protection. In addition, the CWCB has withdrawn its 1995 application for an instream flow <br />' water right and is uncertain if and when it will file for a new instream flow right in the future. <br />Compact issues: Water users in the Yampa Basin are concerned that the PBO not infringe <br />on their right to develop water under the interstate compact between Colorado and Utah. <br />The PBO would not specifically limit development of water resources in the future, but would <br />' address water development incrementally to ensure the needs of the endangered fishes are <br />being met. Therefore, it does not conflict with existing interstate compacts. <br />' 21 <br />' <br />Proponents of new storage oppose leasing water from existing storage or contracting with <br />irrigators for occasional use of their water. They see this as a limit on existing water use, <br />contrary to the mission of the RIP. Moreover, they see no real difference between new <br />storage and full utilization of existing storage in terms of their impacts on the spring peak. <br />The CRWCD views the existing Steamboat Lake lease as only a short -term, partial solution to <br />augment low flows for fishes. Moreover, the distance of Steamboat Lake from critical habitat <br />' <br />and the low volume of water released expose it to potentially high transit losses and make it <br />difficult to track the water effectively. <br />The CRWCD would construct a storage facility and retain ownership of the water, making it <br />available for human consumption in the future. In the interim, CRWCD would lease water to <br />the RIP to benefit the endangered fish. The Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District also <br />opposes taking water from water users as a condition of a favorable biological opinion. <br />However, the Conservancy District does not oppose lease agreements with willing lessors, if <br />' <br />agreements are negotiated without coercion. <br />The potential financial and adverse environmental impacts of new storage make this option <br />' <br />unacceptable to the USFWS, viewing it as an inappropriate use of RIP funds to build water <br />storage for people. Furthermore, the USFWS is reluctant to commit significant financial <br />resources to construct new storage specifically for fish without a compelling need for <br />' <br />augmentation. The USFWS considers such construction to be a last resort, to be undertaken <br />only if its benefits to fishes can be proven to outweigh its potential impacts. The impacts can <br />only be simulated and cannot be tested on the ground. Moreover, leasing water from existing <br />' <br />storage supplies may not be an adequate surrogate to simulate the effects of new storage. <br />The USFWS does not believe that leasing water from existing storage or interruptible supply <br />' <br />contracts conflict with the RIP's mission, because leasing water rights for instream flows is <br />part of the current RIPRAP, and all manner of acquiring water rights and water, except <br />permitting, condemnation and federal reserved water rights, were identified in Section 4.1.4 <br />of the original RIP "Blue Book" as ways of meeting the instream flow needs of the listed fish, <br />' <br />even if that water was transferred from some consumptive use or proposed development <br />(USFWS 1987). The USFWS believes that utilizing existing storage and sharing finite water <br />resources is the most prudent use of both natural and financial resources. Augmenting low <br />flows from existing storage could reduce peak flows, if reservoirs are refilled from peak flows <br />with greater frequency than their current operation requires. However, the potential impacts <br />of modified reservoir operations could be evaluated using the CRDSS. Moreover, leases also <br />offer the opportunity to assess their impacts to stream flows and fish populations in real -time, <br />allowing for the development of alternative management options in the future. On the other <br />hand, the USFWS would have to accept the risk that such management options could be <br />precluded in the future. <br />• Water rights acquisition or appropriation: Purchasing senior water rights as a basis for an <br />instream flow water right was tried (Juniper -Cross Mountain), but met significant opposition <br />from water users. Its subordination to junior rights greatly reduced its value for instream flow <br />protection. In addition, the CWCB has withdrawn its 1995 application for an instream flow <br />' water right and is uncertain if and when it will file for a new instream flow right in the future. <br />Compact issues: Water users in the Yampa Basin are concerned that the PBO not infringe <br />on their right to develop water under the interstate compact between Colorado and Utah. <br />The PBO would not specifically limit development of water resources in the future, but would <br />' address water development incrementally to ensure the needs of the endangered fishes are <br />being met. Therefore, it does not conflict with existing interstate compacts. <br />' 21 <br />