Laserfiche WebLink
<br />JUL-cl-~~ nUN U8:~b An <br /> <br />FAX NU, <br /> <br />r. Ub <br /> <br />00u736 <br /> <br />have a potable water supply unti11990, under the implementation of the 1986 Ute Indian <br />Settlement Agreement. <br /> <br />In the 19405 and 50s, states and the federal government were also moving forward with plans for <br />comprehensive water development throughout the Upper Colorado River Basin. In 1956, <br />Congress enacted the Colorado River Storage Project Act. 2 This Act authorized the construction <br />of initial CRSP units -- Curecanti, Flaming Gorge, Navajo and Glen Canyon; participating <br />projects -- including the Florida Project; and the preparation of planning reports -- including the <br />Animas-La Plata and Dolores Projects. The Florida Project was completed to serve lands on <br />Florida Mesa in 1963, which included some Indian lands but which did not completely meet <br />Indian needs. <br /> <br />The CRSP Act also established a mechanism for assisting in the funding of construction of these <br />and other projects, through the creation of the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund (the "Basin <br />Fund"). Pursuant to this legislation, hydroelectric power revenues generated from the CRSP are <br />credited to the Basin Fund to pay for certain construction, operation and maintenance costs of the <br />initial CRSP units. The balance of any revenues are credited to each of the upper basin states to <br />pay for that portion of the construction costs of participating projects allocated to irrigation, that <br />are beyond the ability of irrigation contractees to repay. Additionally, water users under <br />participating projects can take advantage of favorable rates for CRSP power. <br /> <br />In 1968, Congress enacted the Colorado River Basin Project Act. 3 Among other things, the <br />CRBP Act authorized the construction of the Animas-La Plata and Dolores Projects, concurrent <br />with the completion of the Central Arizona Project. The authorization for the Animas-La Plata <br />Project was for a configuration substantially different than the presently proposed configuration.4 <br />However, the Project was always contemplated to serve both Indian and non-Indian municipal, <br />industrial and irrigation needs.' The configuration proposed to be authorized in settlement of the <br /> <br />2 P.L. 84-485; 70 Stat. 105; 43 U.S.C. 620. <br />3 P.L. 90-537; 82 Stat. 885; 43 D.S.C. 1505. <br />4 Section SOl(c) of the 1968 CRBP Act provides that the A-LP Project be constructed "in <br />substantial accordance with the engineering plans set out in the report of the Secretary transmitted <br />to the Congress on May 4, 1966, and printed as House Document 436, Eighty-ninth Congress..... <br />In contrast to the present configuration, the Project then contemplated the construction of <br />Howardsville Reservoir above Silverton, a diversion from the Animas River near Electra Lake <br />above Durango, Animas Mountain Reservoir, and extensive facilities in the La Plata Basin, <br />including Hay Gulch Reservoir, Three Buttes Reservoir and Ute Meadows Reservoir. <br />S Changes in the proposed configuration of the Project were made in the 1966 Report included <br />in House Document 436, to increase municipal and industrial supplies, and decrease irrigation <br />supplies. A summary of the proposal water supply and depletions as of the 1968 CRBP Act is as. <br />follows: <br /> <br />4 <br />