Laserfiche WebLink
<br />OO!~85 <br /> <br />could give up the public subsidies from which they currently benefit. The Bureau should seek as <br />an alternative to the action to buy all or part of the MVIC water. Currently MVIC has taken the <br />position it will only sell its saved water to other irrigators, however, we urge the Bureau to look <br />at all of its subsidies of water to MVIC and the DWCD to determine whether the Federal <br />government has tools available to secure additional water from the proponents. Such water could <br />be full or partial mitigation (depending on further environmental analysis) for this project. <br />Response 25- The proposed action is to carry privately owned water through Dolores Project <br />facilities. Reclamation has no authority to require or request that privately owned water rights or <br />shares be taken or given up. Reclamation has made $371,000 available to cost share the <br />acquisition of additional fishery water to enhance the fishery pool, but cost sharing partners have <br />not developed. <br /> <br />oweD is working with the Dolores River Instream Flow Partnership Committee and previously <br />sold water for increased downstream releases for the fishery. The Committee has not secured <br />financing to purchase additional water for downstream releases. Reclamation has met its <br />required Dolores Project obligations concerning the downstream fishery as addressed in the 1996 <br />Environmental Assessment and the McPhee Dam Separate Operating Agreement. <br /> <br />Comment 26- The recreation season on the Dolores River is limited; more water should be kept <br />in the river. <br />Response 26-See responses 23 and 24. <br /> <br />Comment 27- The proposal would divert additional Dolores River water and negatively affect <br />the quantity and quality of the rafting experience and other river uses. The Dolores River rafting <br />is unique in terms of its settings and the ability to access a beautiful area via this waterway. <br />Response 27-See Responses 23 and 24. <br /> <br />Comment 28-Current operation of the Dolores Project shorts the fishery by 3,300 af annually <br />and therefore does not meet its existing users needs. <br />Response 28-Current operations are based on use of a fishery pool of 33,200 acre-feet. <br />Reclamation completed an environmental assessment in 1996 which concluded that this pool of, <br />water was sufficient to provide a "good quality" fishery below McPhee Dam and meet fishery <br />mitigation requirements. Senior water rights of 3,900 are included in this; however, it is <br />recognized that these senior water rights are subject to State of Colorado water law <br />administration. The additional water referenced in this question was identified as "enhancement." <br />Reclamation has committed a one time monetary amount of$371,000 to assist in acquiring <br />additional water to augment the fishery pool. It was recognized in the 1996 assessment that this <br />money would not acquire all of the 3,300 acre-feet of water and that other funding sources would <br />be needed. To date, neither additional sources of money have been identified nor have any <br />willing sellers of water been found. A 36,500 acre-foot pool of water was recognized as a goal, <br />but it exceeds the minimum amount of water needed to sustain a trout fishery downstream from <br />the dam. Reclamation continues to maintain an interest in enhancing flow downstream of <br />McPhee Dam but cost sharing partners must participate in the acquisition of additional water. <br /> <br />30 <br />