Aspinall EIS - Scoping Report May 2007

Home Browse Search

the Upper Basin to utilize, consistently with the provisions of the Colo rado River Compact, the apportionments made to and among them in the Colorado River Compact and the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact. The District believes that EIS alternatives must completely protect compact purposes. The District recommended that ce rtain existing commitments need to be in the baseline of the EIS: Taylor Park Exchange Agreement and Taylor refill decrees; winter reservoir targets to reduce ice flooding; downstream flood control; operations to serve as reasonable and prudent alternativ e for Dallas Creek and Dolores Projects under the ESA; operation according to water rights and satisfying water needs of downstream seniors; and protection of recreation and its economic benefits. The District believes that Aspinall Unit rights and decree s call for operations that , insofar as available , satisfy prior decrees downstream from the Unit. A change in the operation of the Aspinall Unit which alters the historical river call regime on the mainstem of the Gunnison will have major impacts on virtu ally every water user in the Gunnison Basin with water rights junior to the 1905 priority of the Redlands senior right. The EIS needs to address operations of the Redlands fish ladder and fish screen and any impacts on water users needs to be mitigated. The “marketable yield” concept for Blue Mesa is fictional. The reservoir has an available yield which covers all uses and there is no separate “marketable pool.” After the EIS Record of Decision has been completed and a Gunnison River Basin Programmatic Biological Opinion implemented, Reclamation can then, and only then , determine what amount of the Unit yield (beyond the relatively small amount of existing and foreseeable future in - basin contracts) may be marketed. As discussed previously though, all As pinall Unit contracts are subject to the primary purpose of meeting compact demands. The District stressed the importance of a Programmatic Biological Opinion to the Gunnison Basin. Uncompahgre Valley Water Users, Tri - County Water Conservancy District, a nd Redlands Water and Power Company: These groups supported comments of the Colorado Rive r Water Conservation District and expressed concern that Reclamation may have an overly broad view of its discretion in Aspinall Unit operations — the baseline should accurately address existing operational commitments made to congress, states, water users and state courts. Unit purposes need to be protected and the primary purpose is river regulation, which means storing water in times of high flows and releasing it when there are shortages. This river regulation function needs to be in the baseline. Ridgway Reservoir operations should not be affected, since the Aspinall Unit provides ESA “mitigation” for Dallas Creek Project depletions. 18