Laserfiche WebLink
<br />;'ft ~. r ,-; <br />\.Ji{~(~ <br /> <br />0006 <br /> <br />SUMMARY <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The Bureau of Reclamation anticipates a second round of water sales from <br /> <br /> <br />Ruedi Reservoir based on current requests for such sales from municipal and <br /> <br /> <br />industrial interests. Sales of water from Ruedi Reservoir meet several objec- <br /> <br />tives of the Operating Principles (OP) for the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project <br /> <br /> <br />(House Document No. 130). The primary purpose of Ruedi Reservoir is to fur- <br /> <br /> <br />nish water required for the protection of western Colorado water users, <br /> <br />including present water rights and prospective uses of water (paragraph 7, <br /> <br /> <br />OP). Receipts from the sale of water from Ruedi Reservoir are applied to pay <br /> <br /> <br />for operation and maintenance costs and to reimburse construction costs in <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />excess of $7.6 million (paragraph 3, OP). <br /> <br /> <br />In order to conduct a second round of water sales, the Bureau has pre- <br /> <br /> <br />pared this Supplement to the FES on the Fryingpan-Arkansas project which was <br /> <br /> <br />published in 1975. The reservoir has a firm marketable yield of about 70,000 <br /> <br /> <br />acre-feet based on current hydrologic analysis. Current requests for Ruedi <br /> <br /> <br />water exceed 70,000 acre-feet. <br /> <br />The scope of the Supplement has been determined from several processes, <br /> <br /> <br />the most important of which were communications between the Bureau and <br /> <br />prospective customers for Ruedi water, and public scoping sessions. The <br /> <br /> <br />cQmmunications and the scaping sessions raised questions and identified issues <br /> <br />that needed to be addressed before the Bureau could define the procedures for <br /> <br /> <br />future water sales. Therefore, the Bureau performed ,an environmental assess- <br /> <br />ment (EA) and distributed that document in June 1983. That document allowed <br /> <br /> <br />the Bureau to identify a preferred alternative. The Decision Document for <br /> <br /> <br />that preferred alternative is presented in Appendix I. This Supplement there- <br /> <br /> <br />fore evaluates only the No Action and the Preferred Alternatives. The EA is <br /> <br /> <br />incorporated in this document by reference. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES <br /> <br />Eleven alternatives were considered in detail in the EA. The analyses of <br /> <br /> <br />the No Action Alternative and the Preferred Alternative are carried forward in <br /> <br />this Draft Supplement. <br /> <br />'''h ,r,,'<f; ...... . <br /> <br />'It <br /> <br />iv <br />