Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'(\'\\1"1'13 <br />v -..;. .-. " <br /> <br />COLORADO RIVER COMPACT WATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECTION', <br />November 2, 1995 FINAL REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />manner. Given the relative size of Colorado's compact apportionment (3.079 to 3.855, MAP) <br />in comparison to the overall flows of the Colorado River originating in Colorado (10.797 <br />MAF), it seems that there should still be adequate flows which the eWCB can protect under <br />instream flow water rights to assist in the recovery of the endangered fish. The total instream. <br />flow appropriations suggested in Table 4 are no greater on average than will flow out of state <br />under the compacts. The more significant challenge will be in arrivin.,s at monthly or daily <br />distributions for these ann1,lll! amounts which protect both water development opportunities <br />and the needs of the endangered fish given the variable hydrology which occurs both annually <br />and seasonally., Also, the structure and format of the water right application will be <br />important, particularly in light of the recent decision in the Aspen Wilderness Workshop, Inc. <br />v. The Colorado Water Conservation Board (Snowmass Creek Case). <br />H. Our recommended approach does not foreclose any reasonable development <br />opportunities within Colorado's compact apportionment. As suggested in the CWCB's <br />Statement of Policy and Procedure, it presumes that within the time it will take to fully <br />develop the redommended range of new consumptive uses, new information about the <br />endangered fis4 will becom.e available such that the CWCB and others will find it necessary <br />to reevaluate the situation and the state's needs. The open process employed in assembling <br />these recommendations, facilitated through the support of the CWCB's staff and others, is " <br />helpful in pronioting the nse of the best information available and enal1ling a diverse group bf <br />interested parties to participate in policy formulation. However, there are limits to what can <br />be expected frqm a group representing statewide interests, and the organization of similar <br />groups within the principal subbasins should also be pursued in order to fine tune the <br />information. <br /> <br />r <br /> <br /> <br />\ <br /> <br />-f <br /> <br />,; <br /><"t <br /> <br />;/' <br /> <br />-'t' <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />" ,', <br />, '; <br />';f <br /> <br />~. <br />'1: <br />1! <br /> <br />