Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />approach is very defensible based on Judge Browns decision in the <br />Taylor Park Refill case and upheld in the Supreme Court. However, <br />it results in many water rights being identified as potentially <br />undevelopable without certain senior rights being bought out or <br />abandon. As a result, this approach is not very popular with the <br />water community and is perceived by many as making it more <br />difficult for a Windy Gap or Wolford Mountain type project to <br />develop. <br />While this process is fairly objective in that it relies on <br />the Water Right Tabulation, it is subjective in how you determine <br />the consumptive use of each right. We also already know that most <br />of the senior rights exist in the Colorado mainstem and San Juan <br />while the majority of the undeveloped (not to be confused with <br />unappropriated) water supplies are in the Gunnison and Yampa. <br /> <br />DEMAND APPROACH <br /> <br />The water demand approach does not look at water rights or the <br />priority system, rather it looks at potential future water needs. <br />These water needs or demands are derived by forecasting future <br />activities, estimating the water requirements for those activities, <br />and reviewing potential water projects that would be able to meet <br />those needs in each subbasin. The estimated demands are <br />independent of any water right considerations and therefore no <br />water rights are specifically attached to any demand. This <br />eliminates many of the concerns water users have with the priority <br />approach and subsequent diligence proceedings on their conditional <br />water rights. This approach might consist of the following steps. <br /> <br />1. Board staff could provide each committee with information from <br />a set of reports prepared for the Colorado Water Conservation <br />Board by Clifford Jex in the early 1960' s along with the <br />current Colorado River depletion schedule. The Jex reports <br />while old attempted to identify an ultimate level of <br />consumptive use from each subbasin. <br />2. Using this information as a starting point, each committee <br />could then identify specific points on the stream at which <br />demands would be determined. Disaggregating and updating this <br />information using data from more recent reports such as the <br />Yampa study and the Gunnison Phase I study could then be done. <br />Factors such annual yield, water quality, compacts, and other <br />environmental concerns could be considered along with new <br />uses. <br />3. Once an estimate of the ultimate level of depletions has been <br />determined, then the present water demand is subtracted to get <br />an estimate of the future water development projection. <br />Included in the future water development projection would be <br />any reasonably foreseeable demands. <br />4. These future demands would then be compared to gaged <br />streamflows and instream flow appropriation recommendations <br />developed. <br />5. Careful consideration and documentation would be required <br />throughout this process so that the end product would be <br />defensible in water court. <br /> <br />coIN 0145 1 <br />