Laserfiche WebLink
<br />O(J16~S <br /> <br />Public Scoping Comments, Gunnison River Contract, conI. <br /> <br /><:~:::.:;,.\:. <br /> <br />11. COLO_SPR; pl./tl. What "alternatives" are being, or will be, examined as part of this <br />proceeding? Will those alternatives include (a) relying simply upon an adjudicated federal reserved <br />water right to meet the Contract goals; (b) using the lower reservoir (Crystal) as are-regulating <br />reservoir in order to meet downstream flow need while accommodating power production; and (c) a <br />"no-action" alternative? If not, why not? <br /> <br />02. COLO_SPR; pl.#2. What is the "need" for this action? Why aren't the asserted goals of tbe <br />action being adequately met at the current time? To what constituency are the agencies responding in <br />advocating the current proposal? <br /> <br />19'. COLO_SPR; pl.#3. What "cumulative impacts" will be exami.Ded as part of this proceeding? Is <br />this contract connected to an examination of other undertakings in the Colorado River system designed <br />to address endangered species concerns? Rec.reation releases? <br /> <br />14c. <br /> <br />COLO_SPR; p2.#JO. <br />under the Contract? <br /> <br />Will there be an examination of impacts upon fisberies as a result of releases <br /> <br />13b. COLO _ SPR; p2.#ll. With specific reference to paragraph 5.e on page 6 of the Contract, how can <br />one assume the 300 c. f.s. minimum flow will be met by a federal reserved right call? <br /> <br />8. <br /> <br />COLO_SPR; p2.#12. With specific reference to paragraph 5.f. on page 6-7, how can one "plus" <br />the accumulated and/or anticipated releases associated with the 300,000 acre foot supply if, pursuant to <br />paragraph 5.0" that 300.000 acre feet is "not included in the volume of water to be released and <br />delivered"? <br />COLO_SPR; p3.#13. With specific reforence to paragraph 5.f., why should one "minus" <br />downstream senior rights when one is merely seeking instrea.m flows through the Canyon? <br />COLO_SPR; p3.#14. With specific reference to paragraph 5.f., how will the "blanks" in the last <br />sentence be determined, and how was the total figure of 736,000 acre feet calculated? <br /> <br />~f~~/~;~ <br />...,:-,,":,. ' <br /> <br />17. COLO_SPR; p2.#4. What assurances willtbere be that the need to prntect electric generating <br />capacity will be met, and that the revenue stream necessary to pay for the CRSP will continue <br />unabated? <br /> <br />3b. COLO _ SPR; p2.#5. It appears premature to proceed with the Contract before the federal reserved <br />water right for the Monument is adjudicated and the need for the Contract in view of that adjudication <br />is finally determined. Why are the parties proceeding in this fashion? <br /> <br />5. COLO_SPR; p2.#6. Isn't any participation at this time by the CWCB also premature? Though the <br />CWCB has agreed to accept a donated right in tbe area in question, that right has not yet been <br />converted, through a water court proceeding, to instream flow use. This process faces legal challenges <br />and an uncertain future. Further, even if the CWCB right is adjudicated, will the CWCB honor its past <br />pledge not to "Slack" its right on top of any federal reserved right? What role does the CWCB have in <br />this process unless the amount of the federal reserved right is 'determined to be less than the CWCB <br />right? Is the CW CB indicating a contrary intention on the stacking issue? <br /> <br />13b. <br /> <br />COLO_SPR; p2.#6. Iso't any'participation at this time by the CWCB also premature? Though the <br />CWCB has agreed to accept a donated right in the area in question, that right bas not yet been <br /> <br />" <br />.;':t..;:.. <br /> <br />.., <br />.."' <br /> <br />.:;1;..4 <br /> <br />38 <br />