Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~'O'O'ff 5 :1. <br /> <br />A second scenario for use of water available through better irrigation efficiency <br />assumes that diversions in the Grand Valley will be reduced in some proportion to the <br />reduced conveyance and on-farm loss. That would effectively reduce the size of the Cameo <br />call, leaving more water available for other users to divert under existing or future <br />appropriations. Currently the Cameo call is satisfied in part by releases from Green <br />Mountain Reservoir and a reduction in the size of the call would allow other uses of this <br />stored water. The reduction in Grand Valley diversions could be voluntary, recognizing that <br />less water is needed to accomplish the same purposes, or administratively enforced by the <br />State Engineer. <br /> <br />A third scenario assumes that an entitlement to the saved and/or salvaged water <br />currently exists or is legislatively created as an attribute of the original water right. Such <br />an entitlement conceivably could be assigned to the original appropriator or to Ihe entity <br />that invests in conservation measures and produces the saved water. Once a property right <br />is assigned the saved water could be transferred or temporarily leased to any use in or out <br />of the basin. There are two current demands which might be expected to acquire rights to <br />this water: the U.S. Endangered Fishes Recovery Program seeking water for the "IS-Mile <br />Reach" at Grand Junction, and junior water rights upstream of the Grand Valley. A <br />transferable salvage right might also be of interest to a revived oil shale industry located <br />upstream of Grand Junction or to the CWCS as the basis for a senior instream flow right <br />on the Colorado River. <br /> <br />A fourth scenario assumes that any return flows from the Grand Valley should <br />remain in the reach of the Colorado River below Grand Junction. This requirement could <br />arise from junior downstream conditional water rights claiming reliance on those return <br />flows for a water supply. Any future CWCS instream flow right for endangered fish or <br />other purposes would also be a downstream junior, possibly relying on Grand Valley return <br />flows. The Colorado River and the Upper Colorado River Basin Compacts apportion the <br />amount of Colorado River water each of the basin states can use. As a result, some water <br />must flow out of the state of Colorado to satisfy apportionments made to downstream states. <br />These apportionments are not unlike a downstream water right capable of calling water <br />from upstream users. Upstream rights junior to the Compacts may argue that they relied <br />on the availability of Grand Valley return flows to help meet downstream apportionments <br />and that they should not be placed at risk of having their own diversions curtailed in the <br />future for compact purposes by a change of historical return flows. . <br /> <br />. VII. Legal and Policy Issues <br /> <br />The same range of policy and legal issues presented in the more comprehensive <br />Analysis of Water Salvage Issues in Colorado generally apply in the particular case of the <br />Grand Valley. <br />