PUB00004

• Year: 2003
• Title: Gunnison Basin Water: No Panacea for the Front Range
• CWCB Section: Administration
• Author: Land and Water Fund
• Description: Gunnison Basin Water: No Panacea for the Front Range
• Publications - Doc Type: Other

End Notes

s

threatened species." ESA, 97(01(2). To ensure against ccusing jeopardy to listed species, ESA 97 requires
agencies to complete consultation with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) before proceeding with any
action that may adversely affect or jeopardize a listed species. If there is a "may affect" finding by the
action agency, the FWS will issue a Biological Opinion on the impact of a proposed action on the species in
question. Consultation may result in a determination that the proposed action may not go forward because
it would jeopardize the continued existence of a species, or it may lead to a set of "reasonable and prudent
alternatives" to the proposed action that will prevent jeopardy to the species.

95 See aenerallv Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Fish Species in the Upper Calorcdo
River Basin (revised version, Mar. 8, 2000L including Section 7 Consultation, Sufficient Progress, and
Histaric Proiects Agreement ond Recovery Action Pion (RIPRAP).

96 l>L

97 See NPS Draft Genercl Mcnagement Pion for Black Canyon Notional Monument ond Cureccnti National
Recreation Area (19971.

9B Federal reserved water rights are based on the Property Clause of the federal Constitution. When the
federal government reserves land for a federal purpose, it impliedly reserves water needed to accomplish the
purpose of the reservation. There is close to a century of Supreme Court precedent recognizing reserved
rights for National Park units, Indian Reservations, and wildlife refuges. A federal reserved rights is a unique
legal creature, born outside state water law but living its life inside the state prior appropriation system.
Federal reserved rights ere unique from rights creoted under state law. They vest on the dcte of federal
reservation and cannot be lost through abandonment or forfeiture. They are ~ntitled to full protection just like
any other right inside the state law priority system.

99 Final Report: Colorado River Compact Water Development Projection Ihereinafter "1995 Final Report")
(Nov. 2, 1995) ct 11.

1 00 l>L

101 1995 Final Report, at 12; 1998 Water Court Opinion, ot 13.

102 1995 Final Report, ot 12.

103 l>L at 6. The Workgroup's Report did not seek to recommend a specific distribution of future water
development to any particular sub-basin. Instead, it proposed a recommended a range of future compact
development for each sub-basin.

104 The ad hoc group, called the Endcngered Fish Flow and Colorado River Compoct Water Development
Workgroup, first met in October 1994 ond published its final report in November 1995. l>L at 6-7.

105 l>L at 13 ond Tobie 4. The minimum remoining cvailable of 450,000 AF equals lower rcnge of total
entitlement (3.079 MAF) minus the maximum estimate of current use (2.6 MAF). The maximum remaining
avcilable of 1.5 MAF equols the higher range or totol entitlement (3.8 MAF) minus the minimum estimate of
current use (2.3 MAFI.

106 The lower limit of this range distributes the State's 450,000 AF of remaining apportionment among the
seven major sub-basins based on the proportionate shere each sub-basin contributes to the natural Row of
the Colorado River. For the Gunnison basin, the estimcte is 22 percent of 450,000 AF, which equals
99,227 AF. See Final Report at 15, Table 4 (column E), and Table 4 footnotes.

Gunnison Basin Water

.65.