Laserfiche WebLink
June 30, 2008 <br />Cons <br />• Bypass protections would need to include cooperation with numerous water users. <br />• Flows would need to be administered to and through reach. <br />• Local water users and downstream water users may have decrees for use of bypasses. <br />• Bypass flow protection could be viewed as an expansion of use. <br />I IA. ]RECREATIONAL IN CHANNEL DIVERSIONS AT GLENWOOD SPRINGS <br />I. Basic Concept <br />This concept would be for a Recreational in- Channel Diversion ( "RICD ") at the <br />Glenwood Springs whitewater park. This RICD could have several co- applicants such as <br />Glenwood Springs, the Colorado River Water Conservation District, the Northern <br />Colorado Water Conservancy District, Denver Water, Colorado Springs, and Garfield <br />County. RICDs must be held by a local governmental entity and it must be for the <br />minimum stream flow for a reasonable recreational experience. This would allow the <br />entities that held this water right to agree upon terms by which they would call for the <br />water right and protect the flows for recreational purposes, but it would allow the entities <br />to include provisions for certainty in drought conditions or when a compact call was <br />being effectuated by the lower basin states. <br />An RICD at Glenwood Springs whitewater park would provide a minimum flow <br />protection for recreational ORVs. These flows may be higher than the CWCB could <br />protect under an ISF water right. Participation by east slope and west slope water <br />providers and Glenwood Springs could assure protections for recreation and for water <br />provider interests. An ISF water right could be included as a separate water right for the <br />protection of different ORVs. <br />An RICD may provide enhancements to ORVs. Upstream water providers could <br />voluntarily release or bypass water to this water right under conditions they agree to, but <br />the flows could be protected, at least through the Glenwood Springs whitewater park <br />reach. Additional RICD structures could be built and established in other areas and <br />managed in the same manner. <br />A Glenwood Springs RICD allows the ORV to be protected with a decreed water right, <br />but the water right decree could include terms and conditions that would allow Colorado <br />to fully use its compact entitlements and provide flexibility for water providers in certain <br />circumstances. Voluntary mechanisms to provide flows will enhance the flow - dependent <br />ORVs and allow those flows to be protected. This concept incorporates flexibility and <br />awareness that conditions will change and allows the water providers to develop decretal <br />language that they can accept, but that will also protect the ORVs. <br />II. Potential Benefit to Stream Segments <br />An RICD protects ORVs, in particular the higher flows needed for the recreational <br />purposes. It maintains flexibility for water users can be adapted with changing conditions <br />and also provides some certainty for water users as well as the resource. <br />