|
|
|
|
|
|
| Instream Flow Appropriation Notices |
|
| 2009 Proposed Appropriations |
|
| 2008 Proposed/Pending Appropriations |
|
|
| Pre-Hearing Conference Notices & Orders |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Current Streamflow Conditions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Instream Flow Natural Lake Level Water Rights Database |
|
|
| Frequently Asked Questions |
|
|
|
|
|
| Agreements with Federal Agencies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The President’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2007 calls for a 20% increase over last year (an increase of 2.8 million) nation wide for the National Streamflow Information Program (NSIP) . However, funding for the USGS Cooperative Program is to be cut by $662,000 or a 1.1% reduction in funding over last year. In general, this may result in a continued escalation in cost to cooperators in Colorado and the potential for fewer USGS stream gages as cooperators drop out of the cooperative stream gaging program. The overall budget from the current Administration for the USGS actually proposes a $20 million dollar reduction to all USGS programs. Almost all USGS programs with the exception of the NSIP and Mapping will likely be cut if approved by congress.
The CWCB and others interested in water resource data are very concerned over the loss of gages. These concerns were addressed in a letter from the CWCB to Secretary Norton, and Senator’s Salazar and Allard in September of 2005.
In November 2005, the Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in the Central City appeal. The Court held that section 37-92-305, C.R.S. requires Central City to include in its augmentation plan terms and conditions protecting the CWCB’s instream flow water right on North Clear Creek from injury caused by out-of-priority diversions, including out-of-priority diversions made from points associated with senior water rights. In so holding, the Supreme Court reversed the Water Court’s determination of law that such terms and conditions are not required. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Water Court with instructions to revise the decree, and stated that the decree should fully protect the Board’s ISF right from injury under both Central City’s plan for augmentation and appropriative right of exchange.
The Supreme Court also affirmed the Water Court’s assignment of a December 31, 1992 priority date to the City’s exchange on the basis that Central City did not satisfy the notice requirement until December 31, 1992 (City had requested an August 1, 1992 priority date).
|
|
|
|
|