Laserfiche WebLink
r <br /> COLORADO BASIN <br /> Basinwide Conditions Assessment: L <br /> The SWSI value of 2.3 indicates that for November the COLORADO RIVER BASIN <br /> basin water supplies were above normal. The Natural 5 Su'aa.Water 54aolY Indr[hiratarY <br /> Resources Conservation Service reports December 1 snowpack 4 <br /> as 115% of normal. The National Weather Service reports 4 <br /> L'. . : ,i <br /> basin precipitation as 85%of normal during the month. Flow 3 ;�[ <br /> . 4. <br /> at the gaging station Colorado River near Dotsero averaged 2 L. . <br /> 1,438 cfs as compared to the 1961-1993 average of 1,156 cfs. ! ; '`" <br /> Storage in Green Mountain, Ruedi, and Williams Fork i 0 J_4 0 .� - ' " <br /> reservoirs totaled 129%of normal as of the end of November. ;- "` ; ti. ./r <br /> The eastern portion of the basin is experiencing 2 '. , , <br /> normal precipitation and cold temperatures,while the middle <br /> and western portions (excluding the Grand Mesa) are below -3 <br /> average for precipitation and above average for temperatures. <br /> JAN86 JANE? JAN98 JAN09 JAN90 JAN91 JAN92 JAN93 JAN94 JAN95 <br /> MON'f W YEAR <br /> Administrative/Management Concerns <br /> In the Division 5 water court Judge Ossola ruled in <br /> case no. 92CW124 that certain water rights (Gaskill Ditch, St. <br /> Louis Ditch,AA Ditch, and St.Louis No.2 Ditch),which were <br /> on the Division Engineer's 1990 abandonment list and owned COLORADO RIVER NR. DOTSERO <br /> by the Denver Water Board, " shall be removed from the 5°° now SY WATER YEAR <br /> abandonment list and are not decreed abandoned". Denver 450 <br /> purchased the senior rights to control the call against their <br /> 400 <br /> upstream junior rights. Middle Park Water Conservancey s 350 <br /> District protested the abandonment list claiming Denver was a <br /> diverting under these senior rights and the District was o f 300 - - <br /> entitled to the return flows from the subject rights. The court g 250 <br /> concluded"...that it was not the intent of Denver to abandon s 200 <br /> the ... water rights, but rather, to control them and make the I <br /> 150 <br /> water under them available for diversion under the senior <br /> water right." 100 <br /> 50 - <br /> OCt Nov Dcc Jan Fob March <br /> Public Use Impacts MDNTH <br /> The U.S. Supreme Court sided with Eagle County to o WET(1994, O ORY(1977) n AVG x 1995 <br /> continue a county permit denial to Aurora and Colorado <br /> Springs for the Homestake II water project, which was to be <br /> built on White River National Forest land. The cities argued <br /> that Eagle County could not deny a permit for a federally REPRESENTATIVE RESERVOIRS <br /> approved project on federal land. Eagle County successfully 140 Colorado River Oacin <br /> argued that Aurora and Colorado Springs must comply with '30- N <br /> all state and local regulations, including negative impacts toii._ <br /> wetlands, scenery, and recreational rafting. ; 10O-// <br /> a 90 J� <br /> I.;' 70 \ <br /> a• so f y/\\\ <br /> 40 <br /> 30 <br /> ./.\ /\/\ <br /> 20 <br /> 10 //\\ //\\ //\\ <br /> Green Mountain FA AAI w' I lama Fart <br /> [771 AVQ. 11/30 Contents ® 11/30/95 COntanta <br /> 7 <br />