WSP03226 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,1'l,,,~...., 0" "'J -, ~ - ~ "" , ".I COLORADO RIVER COMPACT WATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECTION November 2, 1995 FINAL REPORT Page 16 junior CWCB instream flow right, although we assume that any changes of senior water rights (e.g., changes in use, point of diversion, etc.) will conform to the "no injury" standard with respect to the CWCB's instream flow rights and all other water rights. It is understood thatin conforming to ,the "no injury" standard some additional limitations may be placed on the ability to change water rights. E. The hydrologic information provided by the CWCB staff only includes waters which originate in Colorado and thus water from the Little Snake in Wyoming (200,000+ AF) and certain ,flows tributary to the San Juan in New Mexico (approximately 180,000 AF) are not included in the hydrology used to evaluate the various alternatives. There was not total agreement on this approach, but it was agreed that this was a conservative approach which avoided the need to make assumptions about what might or might not occur in our neighboring states. F. We.have not advocated the construction of any particular water project,l1or should our recommendations prevent the development of any water project; we have been as neutrl11 as possible in this regard. G. Given the numerous uncertainties which exist, we do not recommend the appropriation of all the waters available for appropriation within any basin for instream flow protection witb,out carving out or otherwise protecting a development allowance adequate to' assure the flexibility to continue developing Colorado's water supplies in a responsible manner. Givel). the relative size of Colorado's compact apportionment (3.079 to 3.855 MAF) in comparison to the overall flows of the Colorado River originating in ColoradQ (10.797 MAF), it seems that there should still be adequate flows which the CWCB can protect und~r instream flow water rights to assist in the recovery of the endangered fish. The total instr~ flow appropriations suggested in Table 4 are no greater on average than will t1owout of state under the compacts. The more significant challenge will be in arriving at monthly or daily distributions fdr these annual amounts which protect both water development opportunities and the needs of the endangered fish given the variable hydrology which occurs both annul1J.ly and seasonally. Also, the structure and format of the water right application will be important, particularly in light of the recent decision in the Aspen Wilderness 'Workshop, Inc. v. The Colorado Water Conservation Board (Snowmass Creek Case). H. Our recommended approach does not foreclose any reasonable development opportunities within Colorado's compaCt apportionment. As suggested in the CWCB's Statement of Policy and Procedure, it presumes that within the time it will take to fully develop the recommended range of new consumptive uses, new information about the endangered fish will become available such that the CWCB and others will find it necessary to reevaluate the situation and the state's needs. The open process employed in assembling these recommendations, facilitated through the support of the CWCB' s staff and others, is helpful in promoting the use of the best information available and enabling a diverse group of interested parties to participate in policy formulation. However, there are limits to what can be expected from a group representing statewide interests, and the organization of similar groups within the principal subbasins should also be pursued in order to fme tune the information. ~ -,<".,,