Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.- '-JU..llil.l997 4:17R1' <br /> <br />NO.480 P.8/9 <br /> <br />Important to the flsh? <br /> <br />Yes, It is the onlv plan in the Basin that seeks to recov or restore the <br />endangered fish. Significantly, the facilities and depletion in the revised <br />proposal have been approved for construction by the U.S Fish & Wildlife <br />Service. <br /> <br />24. Will the revised project affect water rights held by pri <br /> <br />individuals? <br /> <br />No, assuming the individual has a priority senior to the pro) ct's priority date <br />of 1956. The revisions will not affect the ALP Project Camp ct. the Colorado <br />River Compact or the Upper Colorado River Basin Compa l <br /> <br />25. Will the revi.ed project decrease the Impact on the An mls River? <br /> <br />Yes, lt1e revised project will only remove a maximum of 1 % of the flow In <br />the driest month (October) in a dry year, as opposed to th 38% maximum <br />under the current project. <br /> <br />26. Will the revised project change the River recreation 0 portunitles? <br /> <br />Yes, the revised project could increase the rafUng days b adding water to <br />the Animas in times of shortage. <br /> <br />27. Why does the Agreement mention the Ute Mountai Ute Irrigation <br />Project? <br /> <br />The parties to the Agreement, the ALP proponents, want d to support the <br />Ute Mountain Ute Tribe in Its effort to complete an her part of the <br />Settlement Act. <br /> <br />SJWC QIiA o;>n ALl? Agreement iXl Concept <br />July B, 1997 <br />P"'ge 7 <br />