Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Reclamation's policy in this case is not a selective subordination under the facts of that case. <br /> <br />General Comment: The EA needs alternatives that would protect upstream junior water users not <br />only from Aspinall Unit calls, but also from downstream senior water rights (for example the <br />Redlands senior right, the Gunnison Tunnel, or others). <br />Response: The need for the Agreement was defined in the draft EA in this manner: "A written <br />agreement is needed to fonnalize the long-standing commitment implementing the depletion <br />allowance that was made by the United States prior to construction of the Unit." This <br />commitment did not include protection from downstream senior water right calls and an <br />alternative to provide protection from such calls is outside the scope of this EA and was not <br />included in the EA. <br /> <br />General Comment: The Agreement appears to create procedural complexities that could result in <br />water users having to pay the District substantial amounts for administering what has been "hassle <br />free" in the past and at no cost. <br />Response: A need exists to monitor and account for the amount of depletions as basin water <br />development continues. This service will be provided by the District. The actual cost of this <br />service may be passed on to the benefitting water users. <br /> <br />General Comment: Do the Upper Gunnison Water Conservancy District's existing rights benefit <br />from the depletion allowance? Would the District's development of their rights "use up" the <br />benefits of the subordination leaving little for other water users? How is the second fill right for <br />Taylor Park Reservoir affected? <br />Response: The District's rights and the Aspinall Unit rights have identical priority dates. In <br />cases where there exists a water supply shortage, both rights would nonnally experience a <br />proportional shortage. In these cases the District's rights could still utilize water, and a portion of <br />the District's depletion would be counted against the depletion allowance, and thus would benefit. <br />The second fill of Taylor Park would not be affected, but some depletions associated with the <br />second fill could apply against the 60,000 acre-foot depletion allowance. <br /> <br />General Comment: How would any remaining benefits of subordination be allocated? <br />Response: The allocation would occur under the State of Colorado water right policies and laws <br />and would not involve Reclamation. <br /> <br />General Comment: The NEP A process should not be completed nor the Agreement executed <br />until the appeal process In the Matter of the Application for Water Rights of the Board ofCountv <br />Commissioners of the County of Arapaho. in Gunnison County (Case No. 88CW178) is <br />completed. <br />Response: During the review period of the draft EA, Arapahoe County requested a stay or other <br />injunctive relief from the Courts to prevent execution of the Agreement. This request was denied <br />by the Courts. Reclamation will continue with the NEPA process and negotiation of the <br />Agreement. <br /> <br />9 <br />