My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Case No. 01SA252 Amici Curiae Brief of Colorado Springs Utilities February 2002
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
5001-6000
>
Case No. 01SA252 Amici Curiae Brief of Colorado Springs Utilities February 2002
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/13/2012 10:26:10 AM
Creation date
7/12/2012 4:20:25 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Case No. 01SA252 Amici Curiae Brief of Colorado Springs Utilities February 2002
State
CO
Date
2/7/2002
Author
Pifher, Mark T.; Sinor, Doglas; Miller, Lee E.
Title
Case No. 01SA252 Amici Curiae Brief of Colorado Springs Utilities February 2002
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Court Documents
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
2. Impact on Exchanges. <br />On a similar note, the installation of such recreational features and the concomitant claim for <br />high flows in conjunction therewith will create a very real obstacle to the operation of any water <br />exchanges through the identified recreational reach. In other words, the recreational in- channel <br />diversion will affect exchanges in the same way as a CWCB instream flow decree. The amount <br />flowing through the reach must be present at all times, and hence one could not store water in an <br />upstream reservoir or divert at an upstream headgate in exchange for waterreleases designed to meet <br />a downstream senior call below the recreation reach. Of equal significance, it is extremely unlikely <br />that the "call" of this recreational water right could be met from some other source. That is to say, <br />in the case of a traditional municipal, industrial or agricultural call, it may be possible to deliver <br />water to the place of the senior's need through "other" delivery mechanisms, including alternate <br />points of delivery. For what is essentially an instream flow as being sought by Golden, the need <br />must be met in the entire stream reach. Absent upstream storage for release to the reach, flexibility <br />in water operations is removed from the system.' <br />Finally, if such structures can effectuate the necessary control, a significant issue exists <br />concerning the potential length of the reach which would be "off limits" for future exchanges. In <br />other words, if an individual placed a structure on the mainstem of the Colorado River below the <br />Shoshone Diversion Dam in Glenwood Canyon, another at Glenwood Springs, a third at Rifle and <br />' If upstream storage existed to utilize for such a purpose, it is highly doubtful that an <br />exchange through the reach would be employed, as a diverter would be losing through release <br />what he was gaining in the operation of the exchange. <br />C:\DATA\Paer \Golden AppealTull Brief 2 -7 -02 glmwpd 1 O <br />February 7, 2002 (1:30pm) <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.