My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Upper Colorado River Stakeholder Group Conceptual Plan for a Wild and Secnic Management Alternative June 30 2009
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
6001-7000
>
Upper Colorado River Stakeholder Group Conceptual Plan for a Wild and Secnic Management Alternative June 30 2009
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/5/2012 2:38:04 PM
Creation date
10/5/2012 1:54:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Upper Colorado River Stakeholder Group Conceptual Plan for a Wild and Secnic Management Alternative June 30 2009
State
CO
Date
6/30/2008
Title
Upper Colorado River Stakeholder Group Conceptual Plan for a Wild and Secnic Management Alternative June 30 2009
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
61
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
June 30, 2008 <br />III. Permanent Flow Protection <br />An RICD can provide permanent flow protection. It would be a decreed water right that <br />would be protected under Colorado water law. It could be accompanied by an instream <br />flow right that would also be a decreed water right. As uses and conditions change, <br />parties find new ways to meet target flow goals. <br />IV. Pros and Cons <br />Pros <br />• RICDs allow protection of the higher flows associated with recreation ORVs. <br />By including several co- applicants, including water providers from the Front Range, <br />the parties could agree on conditions when the RICD would not call for a water right. <br />In addition, the final decree could include a pool concept for future upstream water <br />uses. <br />Cons <br />• The Glenwood Springs whitewater park is downstream of the confluence of the <br />Roaring Fork and the Colorado River and removed from Segments 4 through 7. <br />• The process to obtain a decreed water right would be unwieldy and time consuming. <br />• It may be difficult to get agreement between parties. <br />• There is no opportunity vis -A -vis a decree for non - governmental entities, the state, or <br />the federal agencies to hold the water right, but they could participate in the process <br />by filing statements of opposition in order to assure that their interests are protected in <br />the water court process. <br />IIB. RECREATIONAL IN CHANNEL DIVERSIONS AT GORE CANYON <br />I. Basic Concept <br />An application would be filed in water court for a recreational in- channel diversion for <br />Gore Canyon in Segments 4 and 5. Control structures as defined by statute would be <br />placed in the river. The Grand County Stream Management Plan (April 2008) ( "SMP ") <br />which covers most of this reach from Gore Canyon to Grand -Eagle County Line (CR -7), <br />recommended rafting and kayaking flows in this reach as follows: <br />Recreation <br />Minimum <br />Optimum <br />Kayaking — Gore Canyon <br />900 cfs <br />1200 -1400 cfs <br />Kayaking — Pum house <br />500 cfs <br />600 -1000 cfs <br />Rafting — Gore Canyon <br />1000 cfs <br />1200 -1800 cfs <br />Rafting — Pumphouse <br />700 cfs <br />900 -1300 cfs <br />There is some disagreement between these recommended flows and those that were <br />indicated by commercial rafters operating in Segment 7 when Shoshone Power Plant <br />went offline after its penstock burst in June 2007. <br />B -17 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.