Laserfiche WebLink
<br />; <br /> <br />-COloradO Water Conservation Board <br /> <br />Department of Natural Resources <br /> <br />721 State Centennial Building <br />J:l13 Sbennan Street <br />Deuver. Colorado 80203 <br />Pbone (303) 866.3441 <br />FAX (303) 866-4474 <br /> <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />Roy Romer <br />Governor <br /> <br />TO: <br /> <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board Members <br /> <br />Chuck Lile ~L <br /> <br />James S. Locbbead <br />Executive DireclOr. DNR <br /> <br />Daries C. Lile, P.E. <br />Director. CWCB <br /> <br />FROM: <br /> <br />DATE: October 19, 1994 <br /> <br />SUBJECT: Agenda Item 21 (c) <br /> <br />There are two unresolved issues or concerns with the Draft Glen Canyon EIS: I) Experimental Flow <br />(Spike Release) and 2) Flood Frequency Reduction. The Adaptive Management Process is not <br />presently an issue. <br /> <br />_ <br /> <br />Experimental Flow (Spike Flow): The states and U.S.B.R. are presently in an ongoing consultation <br />concerning the legal and environmental issues surrounding the experimental flow releases below Glen <br />Canyon Dam. Colorado as well as the other six basin states has voiced serious opposition to this <br />proposal and written comments have been made to Regional Director Charles Calhoun as well as to <br />Commissioner of Reclamation Dan Beard. The Upper Colorado River Compact Commission is <br />seeking a meeting with Commissioner Beard to discuss the issues. A copy of our comments are <br />attached. <br /> <br />Flood Freauencv Reduction: Arecent development involves changing the draft EIS to delete the <br />inclusion of flash boards on the spillway of Glen Canyon Dam. Colorado supported the installation <br />since this would have no adverse impact on the Upper Basin's ability to meet Lower Basin <br />deliveries, in effect there would be more storage in the Upper Basin. However, the alternative to <br />surcharging the reservoir is to reduce storage making space available for flood control. This would <br />impact the available storage to the Upper Basin and increase risk to insure deliveries of the 7.5 MAP <br />on a ten year average. We have raised concern with the Bureau (see attached letter). <br /> <br />Both of these issues go to the overall concern as to the interpretation of the Grand Canyon Protection <br />Act and whether the Act supersedes the' Law of the River. The spike release issue along with <br />reducing storage in Lake Powell raises very serious legal as well as water allocation problems. We <br />are carefully exploring all options to resolve conflict over the issues, however, we cannot rule out <br />the possibility of taking legal action to protect Colorado Compacted entitlements. <br /> <br />_ w:\boardmem\nov94\agend21c.dcl <br />