Laserfiche WebLink
<br />..-. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />MINI!1"..M ST?"':':'!E'LO:-IS <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />Tne decrees for many of the conditional ~ater rights in the ,{hite River <br /> <br />Basin do not ~ke reference to minimlliu stre~~ flows. For r~ny of the <br /> <br />smaller rights, particularly on the main stem of the '~nite River, <br /> <br />minimum stream flo~s have little sigriificance~ <br /> <br />-Projects involving federal flli,ding and those wholly or partially on federal <br /> <br />, <br />lands will p;"obably be required to meet such flows in any case. <br /> <br />For other <br /> <br />of the larger projects, particUlarly those with major storage facilities or <br /> <br />: <br /> <br />a large-sized diversion works, the public will probably demand that minimum <br /> <br />stream flows be maintained below such works. <br /> <br />Another complication which is similar in nature is the consideration of <br /> <br />minim~ flows at the Colorado-Utah state line. Such 'flows would be required <br /> <br />to supply the Indian claims for water under the winter doctrine and Utah's <br /> <br />demands for industrial water. Such flows can be utilized to meet Colorado's <br /> <br />delivery requiremants under the Colorado River Basin Compact. <br /> <br />Based upon historic stream flows throughout the basin and values of minimlli~ <br />'. <br /> <br />stre&~ flows established or proposed in other basins, <br /> <br />. . <br />. . ' <br />the minirnl.Zn stream <br /> <br />flows in the base problem file for t.~e White River- Basin are shown in <br /> <br />'l'able IV for five of the future projec~s and at the Colorado-Utah state line. <br /> <br />0'26'1 <br /> <br />.' <br /> <br />14- <br /> <br />, <br />~ \. <br />