My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC12924
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
1001-2000
>
WSPC12924
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/29/2009 1:46:24 PM
Creation date
4/21/2008 11:51:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8230.400.31.F
Description
Avon RICD
State
CO
Title
Related Reports
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
78
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 />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Applicant's conditional water rights cannot be put to beneficial use lUltil the Project is <br />constructed. <br /> <br />12. ALP is currently authorized by Congress to supply water to rnect non-Indian <br />needs as wen as to satisfy the water rights decreed to the United States in trust for the benefit of <br />the Southern Ute Indian Tribe and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe (together, "Ute Tribes" or <br />"Tribes") pursuant to the Consent Decrees entered in Case Nos. W~1603~76F and W-1603-76J <br />on December 19, 1991. in District Court, Water Division 7. See Applicant's Ex. 107 (Colorado <br />Ute Settlement Act Amendments of 2000) at p. 7 of 12. The Consent Decrees implemented a <br />settlement with the Tribes authorized by Congress in the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights <br />Settlement Act of 1988, Pub. 1. 100-585 ("1988 Settlement Act"). <br /> <br />13. The evidence submitted by the Applicant establishes that, during the diligence <br />period from August 1995 to August 2001, political, economic and legal conditions beyond <br />Applicant's control hindered construction of the ALP, and therefore, made development of <br />Applicant's Project water rights impossible. <br /> <br />14. At the beginning of the diligence period, Applicant was awaiting completion <br />of the Project's Final Supplement to the 1980 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FElS). <br />which was necessary to begin ALP construction. In January 1996, the U.S. Bureau of <br />Reclamation ("BOR") postponed completion of the Final Supplement to the FElS. <br /> <br />15. In April 1996, Reclamation prepared a Final Supplement to the FEIS <br />C'1996FSEIS") for ALP. Applicant's Ex. 79. At this point, ALP construction efforts stalled. <br /> <br />16. BegjIllling October 9, 1996, Applicant participated with the States of Colorado <br />and New Mexico, the Animas-La Plata Water Conservancy District, the two Colorado Ute Indian <br />Tribes, the U. S. Department ofthe Interior and the USEP A, other Project proponents and <br />Project opponents (including Opposer CPA), in the "Romer/Schoettler Process." The <br />Romer/Schoettler Process, initiated at the request of then Colorado Governor Roy Romer, was an <br />effort to resolve controversies surrounding ALP construction under the 1988 Settlement Act. <br />Applicant's Ex. 109. <br /> <br />17. The parties in the Romer.Schoettler Process entered into a "standstill" <br />agreement under which certain activities and litigation would continue during the pendency of <br />the Romer/Schoettler process, but certain other activities and litigation would cease, be delayed, <br />or be stayed. Applicant's Exs. 111-112. <br /> <br />18. Representatives of Applicant participated in all of the Romer/Schoettler <br />Process meetings. Applicant's Exs. 35,36, 37,40, 110, 111, 112. During 1996 and 1997, while <br />this Process was ongoing. representatives of Appllcant lobbied members of Congress to Oppose <br />various legislative efforts to limit or deauthorize the ALP. Applicant's Exs. 51,52, 101, 102. <br />103, 104. <br /> <br />13 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.