My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01746
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD01746
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:06:35 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 7:01:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
11/15/2005
Description
ISF Section - 2006 New Appropriation Recommendations in Water Divisions 1,4,5,6 and 7
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
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
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board <br />November 3, 2005 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />2. The new instream flow should be for an appropriate stream reach and reflect the <br />gaining nature ofthe river. In other words, if an R-2 cross section at the mouth or bottom section <br />of that river is the basis for the instream flow filing, the amount claimed at the location of the R-2 <br />cross section must be proportionately reduced in the upper segment of the stream reach to <br />account for inflow. There is simply no scientific or other basis to claim a fixed amount for an <br />entire stream reach based on measurements taken at the bottom end of a gaining stream. <br /> <br />3. The CWCB must prove that the amount claimed is the minimum amount to <br />protect the natural environment to a reasonable degree. In this regard, the claim must be for no <br />longer than bi-monthly increments to reflect the natural hydrograph, and must provide for daily <br />reductions to reflect diurnal fluxations of the stream. The CWCB must also prove what is <br />reasonable in terms of protecting that natural environment. The issue of reasonableness must <br />take into account the development occurring in the Eagle River basin. <br /> <br />4. The instream flow must account for and be reduced by natural evaporation and <br />transit losses. In other words, if the instream flow at the top end of a stream reach is 20 cfs, the <br />flow at the bottom end would be reduced by the transit loss. <br /> <br />5. The instream flow filing must specifY that it will be the CWCB's sole obligation <br />to install measuring devices to enforce an instream flow call and the cost of such devices cannot <br />be shifted to any third party. <br /> <br />6. Any instream flow filing may only be enforced at the point on a stream reach <br />where the CWCB has installed a measuring device at its sole cost and expense, and no more than <br />one measuring device shall be permitted per instream flow reach. This term is necessary to <br />ensure that flow reach is the appropriate stream length. <br /> <br />7. The CWCB should be mindful that it has been asserting in RICD cases that if a <br />call will not produce the full decreed amount, then the call should not be honored. If true for a <br />RICD, it is especially true for an instream flow. <br /> <br />Finally, it should be noted that the basis of the requested enlargement is improvement to <br />the river. The improvement deepened and narrowed the river in a portion of this segment. That <br />improvement decreased the amount of water required to support a cold water fishery. <br /> <br />fd9382 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.