8089 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

forecasting would make water uses more efficient and another was critical of the hydrology tables in the EA because they allowed Reclamation to "operate the Aspinall Unit with the benefit of hind-sight. " Concerns were also expressed that water needs would be additive rather than have the same water serve several uses. Several comments were received that supplementing flows would improve water quality in low flow periods for downstream water users and this should be mentioned. Reclamation develops an operating plan during the Aspinall Unit operation meetings held each year in January, April, and August. The operating plan is dependent upon the current hydrologic conditions and the available water supply. The operating plan shall completely remove the need for administrative calls by downstream Gunnison mainstem users senior in priority to the Aspinall Unit, unless such a plan would cause Blue Mesa Reservoir to drop below 400,000 acre-feet of total storage by the end of the current calendar year. In dry years, water shortages will be addressed by the signatory parties to the interim agreement based on mutually agreed upon criteria and coordination at Aspinall Unit operations meetings. The waters of the Colorado River and its tributaries were allocated and apportioned by the Colorado River Compact of 1922 and the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact of 1948 and by other pertinent agreements commonly called the "Law of the River. " This is recognized in the interim water agreement. The Aspinall Unit was constructed, under the Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956, to allow Colorado to develop the water apportioned under the Compacts. One of the basic premises of the Recovery Program is to recover the fish while allowing water development to continue. The proposed interim agreement is specifically to provide water for study purposes outlined in the agreement. The State of Colorado division engineers have the authority and responsibility to administer the waters of the state which means ensuring that water right holders and recipients of contract water store, divert, release, and receive water they are entitled to under the governing writer laws of the State. The State Engineers office keeps detailed records that show individual water right holders usage. Concerning the several references to the "148,000 acre feet of water for endangered fish further explanation follows: In 1979, the Service issued its Biological Opinion for the Dallas Creek Project. The identified depletion was 17,200 acre feet of water in an average year. This opinion stated that the only way to replace this depletion caused from the Dallas Creek Project would be to release water from the Dallas Creek Project or from other projects. The opinion identified the Aspinall Unit as possibly the best source of water for such release. In 1980, the Service issued a similar Biological Opinion for the Dolores Project. The identified depletion was 131, 000 acre feet. To compensate for this loss of water from the river system, the opinion recommended that an equal volume of water be released to the Colorado River from one or more projects. These two projects total 148,200 acre feet of depletions to the Colorado River. As the interim agreement was being negotiated, it was evident that there are di flerent interpretations of the 148, 000 acre feet. It was recognized that the Dolores Project had not and probably would not go to full development, thereby reducing the depletions. Rather than identifying the 148,000 50