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 />!ll'k< ~., tl <br />~JU 1 i,J l,j...1 <br /> <br />Public Scoping Comments, Gunnison River Contract, cont. <br />. ," I <br /> <br />. ,- <br />..'..3.,,;'. <br />,~::.~(.::):~: <br /> <br />..,. <br /> <br />11. GREENO+; pS, '2. Issue H. A-B Ltteral Proiect (Continued) <br />2. The Gunnison River Contract must be written to ensure that AB Ltteral or other new <br />diversions through the Gunnison Tunnel do not interfere with the purposes, of the contract., <br /> <br />22. GREENO+; pS, '3. (Issue H. A-B Ltteral, cont.2) The AB Lateral ROD is in direct conflict <br />with the proposed Gunnison River Contract; exactly the same water is needed to meet the purposes of <br />both. Although the ROD states that AB Lateral could not divert water that is contracted from the <br />Aspinall Unit to the National Monument, it does not prohibit AB Lateral sponsors from competing with <br />tbe National 'Park Service for the water during the contract negotiations or during the water release <br />schedule meetings that will implement the contract. <br /> <br />22. GREENO+; p8, '4. (Issue H. A-B Lateral, cont.2) It would be difficult to overestimate the <br />magnitude of this conflict. Environmentalists cannot help but be made very suspicious of the motives <br />that would lead the Bureau to announce the contract negotiations just four days before approving the <br />AB Lateral ROD. AB Lateral ' would be a disaster for Black Canyon of the Gunnison and Gunnison <br />Gorge and it should have been rejected outright. If the contract does not clearly provide that all <br />releases from Crystal Dam except diversions into the Gunnison Tunnel for senior irrigation rights will <br />flow through the Monument, it will leave AB Lateral (or other new Tunnel diversions) as a severe <br />threat to the success of the proposed contract. <br /> <br />22. <br /> <br />GREENO + ; p8, '5. (Issue H. A-B Ltteral, cont.2) The preliminary working draft contract of <br />January 15; 1992, seems to be fairly tightly drawn to protect delivery of water to the National <br />Monument, but there are three provisions that give cause for great concern about potential.interference <br />from AB Lateral. Section 8-b provides that a sponsor of AB Ltteral (Uncompahgre Valley Water <br />Users Association--UVWUA) will be an 'interested party' and will be invited to give 'input" at the <br />thrice-annual water release schedule meetings. Although Section S-b does not mention WAPA as an <br />interested party, undoubtedly it will also have 'input' into the question of water release schedules. <br />Even if the UVWUA and W APA could not affect the total amount of water contracted for delivery <br />under the draft contract, both could have great influence over the timing of those deliveries. Timing, <br />of course, is as important as the quantity for the p.rotection of the Monument and Gunnison Gorge. <br /> <br />~~''::-::~J>f <br />~..' . <br /> <br />9. GREENO+; p9,'2.'- (lssue H. A-B Ltteral, conl.2) The second cause for concem lies in the <br />potential for AB Lateral to contract for water from the Bureau of Reclamation out the 300,000 acre- <br />foot Aspinall Unit water supply, and thus reduce the total amount of water available to the Monument <br />(Section 5-f-I). The draft contract does not explicitly exclude this possibility, and it should. A third <br />problem arises from the potential for AB Lateral to divert water in high water years when the <br />Monument receives the contract maximum of 736,000 acre~feet. Each contract alternative should <br />address this problem and the EIS should analyze the consequences of the alternative contract terms. <br /> <br />19a. GREENO+; p9, '2. (Issue H. A-B Lateral, cont.2) The second cause for concern lies in the <br />potential for AB Lateral to contract for water from the Bureau of Reclamation out the 300,000 acre- <br />foot Aspinall Unit water supply, and thus reduce the total amount of water available to the Monument <br />(Section 5-f-I). The draft contract does not explicitly exclude this possibility, and it should. A third <br />problem arises from the potential for AB Lateral to divert water in high water years wben the <br />Monument receives the contract maximum of 736,000 acre-feet. Each contract alternative should <br />address this problem and the EIS should analyze the consequences of the alternative contract terms. <br /> <br />,;;, '..:>...,. <br /> <br />60 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.