Laserfiche WebLink
<br />o <br />o <br />l.) <br />.... <br />CD <br />o <br /> <br />The protection of flows required for fish recovery is agreed to be the responsibility of each of <br />the states under state law. Colorado can only implement flow acquisition and protection to the <br />extent of the authority it has under current statute or as may be provided by amendment. <br />Current statutory authority is quite broad: <br /> <br />[R]ecognizing the need to correlate the aCl1vll1es of mankind with some reasonable <br />preservation of the natural environment, the [CWCB] is ." vested with the eJlclusive <br />authority ... to appropriate... such waters of natural streams ... as the board determines <br />may be required for minimum stream flows... to preserve the natural environment to a <br />reasonable degree. CRS ~ 37-92-102(3) <br /> <br />While the Board must make determinations that the natural environment will be preserved to a <br />reasonable degree by the water available for the appropriation and that there is a natural <br />environment that can be preserved, there are no detailed standards specified for the measurement <br />of "the preservation of the natural environment to a reasonable degree. " <br /> <br />It is clear that an overriding constraint to establishing large instream flows for the endangered <br />fish is Colorado law and the Colorado River and Upper Colorado River Basin Compacts: <br /> <br />Nothing in this article shall be construed as authorizing any state agency... to deprive the <br />people of the state of Colorado of the beneficial use of those waters available by law and <br />interstate compact. CRS ~ 37-92-102(3) <br /> <br />Currently, information and tools available to the Board leave it difficult to determine the effect <br />of any set of instream flow appropriations upon the state's future water development <br />opportunities under Colorado law and interstate compacts. While work on such tools is <br />proceeding with the development of the Colorado River Decision Support System, such work <br />will take several years to complete. However, during the interim, instream flow protection must <br />be provided for the Recovery Program to succeed, <br /> <br />The concept of fish "recovery" also suggests a possibility for subsequent downward modification <br />of an instream flow water right. More water may be needed for recovery; however, once viable <br />fish populations are re-established, more water may become available for development and still <br />afford protection of the natural environment to a reasonable degree. If this should turn out to <br />be the case, modification of the water right should be made based on future factual <br />determinations. The possibility also exists that future studies may identify a need for more <br />water. <br /> <br />Because of the scientific uncertainty as to exact flow requirements of the fish, the potential <br />impact upon the compact development opportunities and the need to proceed on recovery <br />implementation, the September 1993 Enforcement Agreement provides for modification of <br />instream flow water rights for the endangered fish through paragraphs 3 and 4. <br /> <br />The Policy and Procedure document states that the Board will indicate, by formal resolution, <br /> <br />4 <br />