Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br /> <br />Seaholm, Randy <br /> <br /> <br />. From: Rbethel@aol.com[SMTP:Rbethel@aol.com] <br />Sent: Tuesday, June 23,19981:25 PM <br />To: randy.seaholm@state.co.gov <br />Cc: Rbethel@aol.com <br />Subject: CWCB Recovery Plan Water Right Applications <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Randy: <br /> <br />You requested comments on whether the CWCB should withdraw its water right <br />applications on the Colorado and Yampa Rivers. No easy answer to this <br />question. If there were, I would not have struggled with T&E fish issues on <br />the Colorado for the last 20 years for various clients. <br /> <br />I believe much of the resistance to the water right applications comes in the <br />complexity of those applications and the difficult prospect of administering <br />those applications and assessing levels of future development (what's included <br />in future development, at what level, conflict with existing water right <br />system, opportunity cost of development, etc.). Though I have no answers, I <br />would suggest (not representing any clients) the following: <br /> <br />1. That the recovery and baseflow water rights be consolidated into a single <br />water right similar in character to a typical CWCB instream flow right. The <br />fiowrates for this right could be determined to allow a given amount of future <br />development (I.e. 200,000 af on the Colorado River) upstream (principally <br />storage water development) to occur. <br /> <br />2. That, over and above the simple instream flow above, the USFWS rely on <br />the purchase and change of senior water rights (I.e. Grand Valley Project <br />rights used prior to water management plan, oil shale rights, Juniper/Cross <br />Mtn Project) to create more water in the critical reaches and control <br />development upstream. The purchase of rights or storage water would allow the <br />cost of this part of the program to be determined. <br /> <br />3. That the USFWS consider mechanical means of enhancing flows in the <br />critical reaches. For example, this may include pumping water from the <br />Colorado River near Fruita or from the Gunnison Redlands Power tailrace to the <br />head of the critical reach. Though this would be expensive, every alternative <br />is expensive in my mind (considering opportunity costs)! At least the costs <br />would be up front and future developers could pay for the pumping capacity. <br />suggested this approach to Bill MacDonald of the CWCB many years ago. <br /> <br />Randy, I do not envy your responsibilities on this difficult matter. Take <br />care. <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br />Ross Bethel <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Page 1 <br />