Laserfiche WebLink
Dependent upon current hydrologic conditions and the available water supply, Reclamation <br />would implement an operating plan which removes the need for administrative calls by these <br />senior water rights when making releases for endangered fish. If an operating plan cannot be <br />implemented which removes the need for administrative calls, then the parties to the agreement <br />may reduce the 300 cfs fish release in order to minimize administrative calls. Simply, this <br />means that post-Aspinall Unit water availability would be maintained as much as possible <br />through Aspinall Unit operational flexibility, and increased calls on the river (which could harm <br />some water users) would not be likely. The 400,000 acre-foot threshold was selected by <br />examining historical storage records and determining the storage level that would least impact <br />operations in subsequent years. <br />Alternative B (Protection of Basin Water Users through Contracts)-Under Alternative B, the <br />agreement would maintain flows of 300 cfs downstream from the Redlands Diversion Dam as <br />in Alternative A. In order to provide formal protection of downstream mainstem water users, <br />it would be necessary to execute water delivery contracts with each individual and entity who <br />have historically benefitted from Aspinall Unit operations. These contracts may be subject to <br />the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (RRA). The RRA contains, among other things, <br />provisions that limit the amount of acreage a landowner and/or lessee is allowed to irrigate with <br />water purchased from Reclamation. The RRA also contains provisions that may affect the price <br />paid for Reclamation irrigation water. Water users with contracts would not be affected by <br />protection of the interim water deliveries to endangered fish. Water users without contracts <br />would be subject to water rights administration. This means some water users who have <br />received water released from Blue Mesa would stop receiving water. <br />Alternative C CN_o S=ial Protection of Basin Water Users)--Under Alternative C, the agreement <br />would maintain flows of 300 cfs downstream from the Redlands Diversion Dam in the months <br />of July through October. The agreement would not specify any special operational <br />considerations for determining releases from the Aspinall Unit to help maintain post-Aspinall <br />Unit water supplies. Under this alternative, some water users who have received water from <br />Blue Mesa would stop receiving water. <br />Under all alternatives, water would be available to interested water users, based on available <br />supplies, from the Aspinall Unit through contracts. These alternatives for the interim water <br />agreement are discussed in more detail in Chapter 3, under "River Flows, Water Rights, and <br />Water Use." The signatory parties to the interim agreement--Reclamation, Colorado Water <br />Conservation Board, and the Service were chosen because of their regulation of Blue Mesa <br />storage, their responsibilities for the waters of Colorado, and for their responsibilities for <br />monitoring endangered species, respectively. <br />As part of the proposed interim agreement (Alternative A), Reclamation, in cooperation with the <br />State of Colorado and water user organizations, will monitor effects on water users. As stated <br />previously, it is anticipated that a long-term water contract will be developed in the future. The <br />interim agreement is not intended to be a precedent or to preclude options and alternatives in <br />developing this long-term contract. <br />11