Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-'-J <br /> <br />Executive Summary <br /> <br />needs. The decrees entered in cases 83CW143 and 91CW31 by the Division 6 Water Court <br />provide for this subordination. This strategy would tend to minimize the need for additional <br />water storage in the basin but would also reduce the flows that could be legally called for by <br />the instream water right: <br /> <br />The second strategy (which defines, in a sense, an opposite extreme) would be to <br />transfer a portion of the Juniper water rights to existing and future reservoirs in the basin with <br />the remainder of the rights being transferred to instream flow. In this case, the reservoirs <br />would serve to supply water directly to all the existing and future uses which would otherwise <br />be called out by the more senior priority of the instream flow right. The reservoirs would <br />essentially act as sources of augmentation for these junior rights. This strategy would <br />maximize the flows that could be legally called for by the instream flow rights but would also <br />tend to maximize the need for additional storage in the basin. <br /> <br />In all likelihood, the final resolution of the transfer will involve aspects of both of these <br />strategies in some combination that respects the decreed benefits of the general subordination <br />while providing an adequate seasonal instream flow regime. Although the final terms of the <br />transfer are still unresolved, it was decided that, by examining the two strategies described <br />above, the Study would "bracket" the range of possibilities of t.~e final resolution. The <br />subordination-only strategy was evaluated in mode! Scenario I while the augmentation strategy <br />was evaluated in model Scenarios III through V. (Model Scenario 1 also showed that the <br />"subordination only" strategy is functionally equivalent to doing nothing with the Juniper <br />Project water rights.) Nothing in the choice and definition of these model scenarios should be <br />construed as a legal position or interpretation concerning the Juniper Project water rights or <br />subordinations thereof. <br /> <br />WATER USES AND NEEDS <br /> <br />Projections of near-term (year 2015) and long-term (year 2040) water demands in the <br />Yampa River basin were an important component of this study. The projections were required <br />to adequately plan water supply systems and estimate water demands for future economic <br />development of the basin. Projections of water demands were also used in sizing and siting <br />storage facilities and in operations studies for proposed reservoirs. <br /> <br />Recent water use data (Davenport, 1990; USDI, USGS, 1989; CDWR, various years) <br />were used to estimate 1989 actual and potential water use in the basin. <br /> <br />The estimated potential demand under 1989 conditions assumed greater utilization of <br />existing facilities and allowed for higher but not unprecedented depletion rates. Potential <br />municipal use included a 36 percent increase over 1989 use and was meant to allow for high <br />demands that could be experienced during a dry summer. The potential thermoelectric use <br />estimate allowed for 90 percent utilization of existing generation capacity and the highest water <br />use per unit of generation at Craig and Hayden observed over 1985 to 1989. The potential <br />irrigation use was based on 75,000 irrigated acres, slightly more than the highest historical <br />value of 73,300 acres estimated for 1983, and 1.11 af of depletion per acre estimated for 1989. <br />Potential evaporation and export figures were the highest calculated by the State Engineer's <br />Division 6 office over the 1981 to 1989 period. <br /> <br />Potential demand estimates for 1989 were used as the base condition since supply <br />planning should be based on potential demand ra\her \han observed use. Also, the use of <br />potential demands provided a more conservative estimate of future water needs. <br /> <br />S-7 <br />