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 />II. Benefit to Stream Segments <br />An RICD in Gore Canyon as a stand alone tool, or enhanced with an augmentation plan, <br />would provide a mechanism to secure flows for the ORVs in these segments. <br />III. Permanent Flow Protection <br />A decreed RICD water right would provide permanent protection. <br />IV. Permanent Flow Protection <br />Pros <br />• RICDs provide a legal means for permanent protection of flows for recreation ORVs. <br />With augmentation, RICDs could provide flows need for ORVs, not just the <br />minimum values typically afforded through CWCB ISF rights. <br />• See Pros for Concept 4a. <br />Cons <br />• RICDs have been controversial. <br />• Diversion structures are costly to construct. <br />• Due to statutory limits, a stand -alone RICD may not be able to protect flow regime <br />that allows the value to continue to be "outstandingly remarkable ". <br />• Adding a RICD structure to the river may be in conflict with protection of ORVs. <br />12. RIVER DISTRICT APPROPRIATION OF WATER FOR FISH PRESERVATION <br />I. Basic Concept <br />The Colorado Revised Statutes Title 37 Article 46 is the founding legislation creating the <br />Colorado River Water Conservation District (River District). Under the River District's <br />legislation of General Powers: <br />0) To file upon and hold for the use of the public sufficient water of any natural <br />stream to maintain a constant stream flow in the amount necessary to preserve fish <br />and to use such water in connection with retaining ponds for the propagation offish <br />for the benefit of the public <br />The general concept would be for the River District to apply for some amount of water to <br />protect the fishery that would be sufficient to protect and enhance the ORVs in the <br />designated reach. The water right could be a combination of storage and /or in stream <br />flows, subject to possible conveyance to the CWCB. Any stored water could be <br />delivered on an agreed upon schedule and rate. <br />II. Benefit to the Stream Segments <br />A River District ISF right could offer the segment protection by preserving a minimum <br />flow or enhance the flows within the designated reach or delivery area to provide more <br />consistent suitable flows for the fishery. <br />. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.