Laserfiche WebLink
Figure 10 <br />8,000 <br />7,000 <br />8,000 <br />5,000 <br />N <br />LL <br />3 4,000 <br />0 <br />LL <br />3,000 <br />2,000 <br />1,000 <br />0 <br />Option 3b - Development Carve -Out <br />Concept: In this option, the instream flow filing would be made for "all flow <br />remaining" after depletions occuring under the development reservation. <br />Administration would be based on monitoring current and prospective depletions (e.g., <br />as water right applications are made) and disallowing, through Water Court opposition, <br />new filings and changes of use which would exceed the development reservation. <br />Advantages: <br />• provides for seasonal and interannual variability, though indirectly <br />• no actual river administration required on behalf of instream flow <br />Disadvantages: <br />• requires continual monitoring and accounting of depletions <br />• sr. conditionals could "bump" jr. absolutes "out" of development reservation <br />• indefinite re- opener provisions required in all new water right decrees <br />• no minimum base flow <br />`m > > CD m o m <br />Q 9) 0 Z <br />