Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Department of Natural Resources <br />October 6, 1997 <br />Page 2 <br />Lochhead said the goal of the discussions is to reach agreement among water users who <br />have direct interests in the Colorado River mainstem. <br />The discussions are focused on two major issues. The first concerns federal review of <br />water development projects within the Colorado River mainstem from the river's headwaters to <br />its confluence with the Gunnison River in Grand Junction. The second concerns the Colorado <br />Water Conservation Board's applications for instream flow water rights within the lower 15 <br />miles of that reach. <br />At the Oct. 2 meeting, participants agreed to the concept of a "programmatic" Section 7 <br />biological opinion, which would evaluate the impacts of all current and future water development <br />projects rather than subjecting each project to a separate review. A Section 7 review by the <br />USFWS is required under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to determine the impacts of any <br />action that might affect endangered species or their habitat. <br />Associated issues to be discussed at future meetings include the relationship between <br />existing and future depletions. Water users on both sides of the Continental Divide are <br />concerned about how future water development should be apportioned. They also hope to secure <br />from the USFWS more certainty that actions taken by the Recovery Program will be sufficient to <br />allow water development to proceed within the basin. Additionally, water users have expressed <br />concern that the program has placed too much emphasis on streamflows and not enough <br />emphasis on other activities, such as non-native fish removal and stocking native species. <br />Everyone who filed objections to the CWcB's instream flow applications has been <br />invited to send representatives to the talks. <br />The cWcB filed two water right applications in December 1995, following more than <br />two years of technical studies and public meetings. One filing would protect a small baseflow <br />intended to ensure that some water would remain in the stream at all times. The other is <br />designed to protect peak flows that mimic the natural hydro graph during the spring runoff, which <br />biologists believe are necessary to improve habitat for the fish. <br /> <br />- more - <br />