My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GunnisonComments06
CWCB
>
SWSI
>
DayForward
>
GunnisonComments06
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/11/2009 10:32:38 AM
Creation date
1/7/2008 11:15:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
SWSI
Basin
Gunnison
Title
Comments 6
Date
3/2/2004
SWSI - Doc Type
Comments
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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 />Colorado River Water Conservation District Statewide Water Supply Initiative 'nterests Statement <br />Page 3 of 11 <br /> <br />River District Interests vis a vis SWSI: <br /> <br />1. Recognition that the historical basin operations maximize benefits to CRWCD constituents <br />and SWSI can be used to educate, and illustrate this to, the state and basin interests. <br /> <br />2. Recognition that current reservoir operations benefit the entire basin and provide protection <br />against jeopardy to the continued existence of the currently listed endangered fish species. <br /> <br />3. Recognition of that a PBO is necessary to protect historical operations as they apply to the <br />ESA. <br /> <br />4. Recognition that a PBO mayor may NOT include an increment of future development and <br />related depletions identified and protected in the Plan. <br /> <br />5~ Recognition that a significant portion of the Aspinall Unit yield is required to meet current <br />commitments~ including downstream senior water rights, upstream subordination agreement, <br />and storage and delivery requirements pursuant to any Colorado River compact calls ("Law <br />of the River"). <br /> <br />6. Recognition that some additional, future mitigation via a set of new ureasonable and prudent" <br />alternatives (e.g., water development projects and/or habitat improvements) may be <br />necessary to avoid a "jeopardy opinionu from the USFWS. These mitigation measures <br />should be designed to preserve the ability to meet existing and potentially future in-basin <br />demands~ It is anticipated that these projects will largely be undertaken by local interests, <br />without need for the State to playa major facilitation role. <br /> <br />Small Upper Basin Storage <br /> <br />Description: Costs aside, water development to physically serve water users that are <br />supply limited has been identified as a high priority of many roundtable participants. Most <br />of these users are located high in the basin. The ability of agricultural users to pay full cost <br />recovery of water development is limited; there may be some opportunity to repay the <br />capital required to develop augmentation supplies for domestic users, <br /> <br />River Distrjct Interests vis a vis SWSI: <br /> <br />1. Recognition that some water development projects will be necessary to meet the <br />future demands, that these projects will largely be undertaken by local interests, and <br />with the exception of funding, wjthout need for the State to playa major facilitation <br />role. <br /> <br />2. SWSI should reflect and document the purpose and need of a potential project to satisfy <br />future human and environmental uses of water in the basint <br /> <br />3. SWSI should reflect and document the many benefits of enlarging existing facilities. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.