Laserfiche WebLink
B. Delivery of Water to a Downstream Demand <br /> Basic Concept <br /> Water that is made available for streamflow protection would be released into the <br /> Colorado River or its tributaries upstream of the protected stream segments. That water <br /> would be delivered to a party within or downstream of the protected segments who <br /> contracts for the use of the water. Potential sources of water include: storage releases <br /> from upstream reservoirs, such as Granby, Williams Fork, Green Mountain, or Wolford <br /> Mountain Reservoirs; changes of existing water rights, such as the Peabody Ditch in <br /> Summit County; and bypasses from trans-mountain diversion facilities. Examples of <br /> potential downstream delivery points could include municipal or agricultural users in the <br /> Grand Valley, municipal or energy industry users in Garfield County, on-channel <br /> hydroelectric projects, or a mainstream RICD. This approach could also be used to <br /> deliver water to an ISF right under an agreement with the CWCB. <br /> II. Benefit to Stream Segments <br /> The amount of water that could realistically be developed and delivered to a downstream <br /> demand needs to be assessed. <br /> III. Permanent Flow Protection <br /> Permanency of flow protection will depend on the duration of agreements between the <br /> source of supply and the ultimate water user. <br /> IV. Pros and Cons <br /> Pros <br /> • Provides an additional tool for protecting flows outside of the CWCB instream flow <br /> program; depends on voluntary, market-based transactions among water users rather <br /> than a regulatory approach. <br /> • Offers flexibility in structuring transactions to match demands. <br /> • Provides multiple benefits by enhancing flows in the protected segments while also <br /> allowing the water to be consumptively used below those segments. <br /> Cons <br /> • Some water rights are not decreed for downstream use. <br /> • There may be potential difficulty in ensuring administrative control of the water <br /> against intervening diversions that might be able to provide a substitute supply below <br /> the protected segment. <br /> • The timing of the deliveries would need to be structured to match the demand pattern <br /> of the ORVs. <br /> Page 2 of 6 <br />