Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~rp!,81 <br />~ '" - .... <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />unfarmed 25 acres into production, However, the farmer may use the saved water from the 75 <br />acres in accordance with Colorado State Law, <br /> <br />Comment 15- The contract between Reclamation and MVIe states that any saved water will be <br />used only in a manner which shall not result in any material increase in salinity inflow into <br />drainages of the Montezuma Valley and the eolorado River. The preceding sentence in the <br />contract asserts that the salvage water may be put to any use by the Company, but then lists two <br />examples-fish and wildlife enhancement and maintenance of cottonwood habitat. The contract <br />suggests that use of salvaged water to bring new lands into irrigated agriculture would represent a <br />breach of the contract. Reading the contract in conjunction with federal policy and regulations <br />leads to substantial question whether the salvage water may be lawfully used to irrigate lands. ' <br />Response 15- Article 9 of the subject contract states that, "Nothing in this contract shall be <br />construed to alter, amend, modify, or conflict with the rights of the eompany (MVIC) to make <br />use of all water adjudicated for its use in a manner consistent with laws of the State of Colorado. <br />The Company, the District and Reclamation agree that any water saved by the rehabilitation, <br />construction and operation of the facilities under this contract may be put to use by the Company <br />for any use, including, but not limited to; fish and wildlife enhancement and maintenance of <br />cottonwood habitat in accordance with approved Department of Agriculture programs for such <br />uses. Any saved water will be used only in a manner which will not result in any material <br />increase in salinity inflow into drainages of the Montezuma Valley and the Colorado River." <br /> <br />The proposed action is consistent with the use of water under the laws of the State of Colorado <br />and with the Salinity eontrol Program in that water will, be placed on soils with a much lower <br />salt content than the soils from which it had been removed. <br /> <br />Comment 16- MVIC agreed to allow the salinity program; for that agreement, saved water <br />belongs to MVIC, with the stipulation that such saved water will not be applied to salty soils. <br />The proposed carriage agreement fulfills that concept. The Federal Government paid only 10 <br />percent of the costs of the salinity program; therefore, only a very small portion of the water can <br />be considered as subsidized by the Government. <br />Response 16- The Colorado Department of Water Resources administers the use and transfer of <br />use of water within the State. The intent of the contract between the United States and <br />Montezuma Valley Irrigation Company (MVIC) (and others) for the rehabilitation; operation, <br />maintenance and replacement of facilities to reduce salinity inflow to the Colorado River is to <br />limit MVIC from using water saved through the salinity features of the Dolores Project to irrigate <br />additional marine shale derived soils within their service area in the Montezuma Valley. See <br />response to comment number 13 concerning payment for salinity control features. <br /> <br />Water supply <br /> <br />Comment 17- Why is water available for new irrigation when it is always said that the Dolores <br />Project is fully allocated. <br />Response 17- The water involved in the Carriage Contract is not considered Dolores Project <br />water-it is privately owned shares of water ofMVIC (See Response 18), The subject water is <br /> <br />26 <br />