9367 ‎(2)‎

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 9367
• Author: Colorado Water Workshop.
• Title: Proceedings
• USFW Year: 1992.
• USFW - Doc Type: Colorado Water Workshop July 22-24, 1992.
• Copyright Material: NO

District the opportunity to have some say in how the water releases
out of Taylor Reservoir are made, and it gives us the opportunity to
use those flows for the benefit of recreation, irrigation, and other
uses. Since the 1975 agreement was signed we have not had to be
subject to calls in the Upper Basin. Therefore, our water supply has
been more stable. We have done a better job of irrigating and have
had a more stable hay crop production, which has helped stabilize the
agricultural economy of our basin. Therefore, even though we lost
some things when Blue Mesa was built, other economic and environmental
positives have been gained from what people call a boondoggle project.
One of the big things that is overlooked, is how much it did for
the recreation industry. It added the flat water on Blue Mesa, and
increased the fishery potential in the Taylor River. I am not going
to try to quote the Division of Wildlife figures, but I think there
has been a threefold or better increase in the fishery production in
the Taylor River downstream of the reservoir. The development helped
stabilize the water levels in Taylor Reservoir itself, so that Taylor
Reservoir is a better fishery today then it was prior to these
changes. In my mind, there are many advantages that have occurred as
a result of Blue Mesa.
As we enter this realm of what can possibly endanger the future
of our community as a result of Endangered Species Recovery program
there are mainly gray areas with very little black and white. There
is little that we can grasp a hold of and know that we are working
with. The Fish and Wildlife Service desires flows downstream of the
Aspinall Unit to meet recovery requirements. To me, there are some
questions that the Fish and Wildlife Service has not addressed. For
example, they have not identified the exact stretches of the Gunnison
where they want a habitat flow in, or those where they want the
passage of fish. That uncertainty raises many questions for us. The
Bureau of Reclamation has shown a willingness to enter into contracts
with the Fish and Wildlife Service to provide those flows, whatever
the negotiated flows are determined to be. This, the Bureau tells us,
will mean that there will be no more releases made in the name of
POWER, and water will not be available for diversion by downstream
senior users. That specified water will be under contract when it is
released and will have to be delivered to where the stretches of
endangered habitat are. That means, to me, that the senior right
holders will then have to place a call in order to get their rights
filled. Therefore, a call is going to right back up through to the
reservoir, like I remember thirty years ago. We have gone full
circle.
There are proposed remedies. The Bureau of Reclamation has
indicated to us that they would be more than willing to enter into
water exchange agreements or water service contracts with the Upper
Gunnison District for municipal, industrial and agricultural water..
That is one potential remedy.
Another potential remedy might be for the Upper Basin to develop
their own storage projects.
A third alternative might be for the Upper Basin to try to
litigate, legislate or negotiate a condition or a pool of water that
sustains the present operation. Let me back up and discuss those
three potential remedies quickly.
As far as water service contracts are concerned, I think, our

90