My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP11573
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
11000-11999
>
WSP11573
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 3:18:04 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 5:03:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8210.766
Description
Gunnison River General Publications - Correspondence - Reports - Etc
State
CO
Basin
Yampa/White
Water Division
6
Date
3/1/1993
Author
Unknown
Title
Scoping Report for the Gunnison River Contract - Analysis Notebook - Section I - Comments by Source
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
94
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />" <br /> <br />::;S01j:l <br /> <br />.,.... <br />,.. .-:,. <br />;:\:;:.~.:}~,) <br /> <br />>::,' ....:' <br />.~:. .':',\..'. <br /> <br />";:.,';:-t.; <br />....;..,,. <br /> <br />'0 '0'1 ~"~ ~ <br /> <br />Public Scoping Comments, Gunnison River Contract, conI. <br /> <br />Gunnison Basin except the Redlands Diversion and the Uncompahgre Valley Water <br />Users' Gunnison Tunnel Diversion? <br />e) How much water would be available to the Park Service under the proposed <br />contract in dry, average, and wet years given existing rights of the Redlands <br />Diversion, UVWUA Gunnison Tunnel Diversion, and other senior downstream rights? <br /> <br />8. - GREENO+; pIJ,'3. (Issue M. Water Supply, cont.) <br />2) Asoinall Unit Water Suoolv (300,000 acre-feet developed by the Bureau of Reclamation) <br />a) What is the slatus of the 60,000 acre-foot Blue Mesa Subordination and how will it affect <br />the contract? <br />b) Will the Bureau of Reclamation allow diversions of all or part of the 300,000 acre-foot, <br />Aspinall Unit Water Supply above the National Monument? <br />c) Would AB Lateral Project developers or others be allowed to contract for all or part of the <br />300,000 acre-foot Aspinall Unit Water Supply for diversion through the Gunnison Tunnel? <br />d) If none of the 300,000 acre-foot Aspinall Unit Water Supply were not available to the Park <br />Service under the proposed contract, how often would the Monument receive more than the <br />187,500 acre-foot minimum annual supply provided for in the January 1992 draft contract? <br />d) How does subtraction of the 300,000 acre-foot Aspinall Unit Water Supply affect the <br />quantity and timing of releases to the National Monument under the proposed contract? _ <br /> <br />lb. <br /> <br />GREENO+; pl1,'3. (Issue M. Water Supply, coot.) <br />2) Aspinall Unit Water Suoo]v (300,000 acre-feet developed by the Bureau of Reclamation) <br />a) What is the status of the 60,000 acre-foot Blue Mesa Subordination and how will it affect <br />the contract? <br />b) Will the Bureau of Reclamation allow diversions of all or part of the 300,000 acre-foot <br />Aspinall Unit Water Supply above the National Monument? <br />c) Would AB Lateral Project developers or others be allowed to contract for all or part of the <br />300,000 acre-foot Aspinall Unit Water Supply for diversion through the Gunnison Tunnel? <br />d) If none of the 300,000 acre-foot Aspinall Unit Water Supply were not available to the Park <br />Service under tbe proposed contract, how often would the Monument receive more than the <br />187,500 acre-foot minimum annual supply provided for in the January 1992 draft contract? <br />d) How does subtraction of the 300,000 acre-foot Aspinall Unit Water Supply affect the <br />quantity and timing of releases to the National Monument under the proposed contract? <br /> <br />10. GREENO+; pll,'4. (Issue M. Water Supply, cont.) <br />3) Colorado River Comoact and Uooer Colorado Basin Comoact <br />a) How will downstream calls under the compacts affect the proposed coo tract? <br />p.IO,'!. b) Should the Slate of California limit downstream calls under the Colorado River <br />Compact to protect and ensure the timing of flows needed for the recovery of <br />endangered fish? <br />c) How mucb of Colorado's remaining allocation of Colorado River Water will come <br />from the Gunnison River? <br />d) Will the Bureau of Reclamation sign its Aspinall Unit Water Supply over to the <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board to help fulfill Colorado's remaining compact <br />allocation? <br /> <br />13b. <br /> <br />GREENO+; pll,'4. (Issue M. Water Supply, cont.) <br />3) Colorado River Comoact and Uooer Colorado Basin Comoact <br /> <br />51 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.