WSPC185 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0025 ~~ United States Department of the Interior OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Washington. D.C. 20240 . FEB I 2002 Recelveo FEB 11 2002 CotOtado Water Cnn~:' . v'-=lVation Board Honorable Scott McInnis House of Representatives Washington, DC 20510 Dear Mr. McInnis: The Secretary has asked me to respond to your August 1,2001, letter regarding Blue Mesa Reservoir. I apologize for the delay. As you are aware, Blue Mesa Reservoir is a part ofthe Aspinall Unit storage system as authorized by the Colorado River Storage Project Act. This Act provides the opportunity for the State of Colorado to "utilize, consistently with the provisions of the Colorado River Compact, the apportionments made to and among [the Upper Basin States] in the Colorado River Compact and the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact, respectively." We agree that the utilization and apportionment of the waters of the State of Colorado should be a State issue. There are multiple issues currently facing the Gunnison Basin. Two of these issues include resolution ofthe National Park Service Federal reserved right for the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service flow recommendations for endangered fish downstream of the Aspinall Unit. It is also important to recognize the utilizatio,n of the Aspinall unit in generating hydroelectric power given the concerns about meeting energy needs. As part of the Upper Colorado River Recovery Implementation Program, the Bureau of Reclamation was tasked with developing a proj ection of "reasonably foreseeable water demand" in the Gunnison River Basin through 2050. The water demand projection is to be used in a . programmatic biological opinion that win identify measures required to recover the listed fish species, provide Endangered Species Act (ES A) compliance to existing water users, and provide for future water development. A similar biological opinion was prepared for the Colorado River Basin above the confluence with the Gunnison River and it has enormously simplified and expedited ESA compliance. The purpose of the projection is not to validate the yield of the Aspinall Unit, nor is the projection being developed to support a specific future water development project. Instead, the purpose of the water demand projection is to identify a level of development which is reasonably foreseeable by 2050 and which will be used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to eval.uate impacts and determine mitigating measures to protect existing uses, allow future development to proceed in compliance with the ESA and to recover fish species. Ifwe are unable to complete the Programmatic Biological Opinion, then each existing and proposed future water development activity could be subject to individual ESA compliance.