My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Item 20b: Colorado River Issues, Endangered Species Issues
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
4001-5000
>
Agenda Item 20b: Colorado River Issues, Endangered Species Issues
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/16/2010 11:31:11 AM
Creation date
7/12/2010 1:35:06 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish
State
CO
UT
WY
Basin
Yampa/White/Green
Water Division
6
Date
5/8/1997
Author
Peter Evans, Randy Seaholm, CWCB
Title
Agenda Item 20b: Colorado River Issues, Endangered Species Issues
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Board Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
34
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
Methods to address the outstanding issue of how to assure that those who invest <br />heavily in the Recovery Program derive benefits and those who do not invest or oppose <br />the Recovery Program are denied benefits continue to be investigated. Protecting the <br />integrity of the states water right system is of major importance in the resolution of this <br />issue. <br />Finally, the Service remains concerned that while discussions surrounding the <br />"working proposal" have been open and extensive, no one has agreed to support this <br />concept, even at a general level. The 15 -Mile Reach Strategy Workgroup agreed to find <br />out if letters of support could be generated prior to the April 29, 1997 meeting of the Ad <br />Hoc Committee on Recovery Program Funding (See item 7 below), but this didn't prove <br />possible (in fact, we are not aware that any such letters have been produced yet). <br />B. Ruedi Reservoir Contract <br />The Board has received a proposed renewal contract from the U.S. Bureau of <br />Reclamation to extend the lease of 21,650 acre -feet of water from Ruedi Reservoir for <br />endangered fish purposes for another year while we continue to work on issues <br />surrounding a long term interim agreement. A complicating factor to extending this lease <br />has developed in that Reclamation, at the bequest of the Service, will not proceed with <br />additional Round II water sales contracts until the long term interim agreement for the <br />endangered fish is complete. As a result, we are not bringing forth the annual contract for <br />consideration at the May meeting so that we can work on a compromise in this matter. <br />The proposed draft contract prepared by the Bureau looks OK and, hopefully, we can <br />resolve the Round II contracting issue and bring the annual contract for 21,650 acre -feet <br />to benefit endangered fish to the Board in July for approval. <br />Eric Kuhn has provided two excellent memos summarizing these issues and <br />recent discussions with the water users, which are included as Attachments 2 and 3. <br />Also, Attachment 4 hereto is a letter from the Ruedi Water and Power Authority to <br />Representative Jack Taylor indicating that some significant progress is being made on <br />some of the long term interim contract issues. <br />C. Grand Valley Water Management <br />The Grand Valley Water Management Study Team met in Grand Junction on <br />April 21, 1997 to review the status of the study and how to proceed with the project. The <br />total cost of the project remains at 8.4 million dollars to conserve approximately 28,500 <br />acre -feet of the operational conveyance spills (15,900 acre -feet of high flow spills and <br />12,600 acre -feet of demand fluctuation spills). <br />Issues discussed included (1) How to utilize the 1.25 million from the Board's <br />Fish and Wildlife Resources ( "Mitigation ") Account; (2) The need to set up a trust <br />account with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to cover the long term operation <br />and maintenance associated with operating the project; (3) a water protection strategy <br />using Green Mountain Reservoir surplus water agreements or contracts; and (4) NEPA <br />compliance options. <br />NEPA compliance appears to be the biggest obstacle to implementing <br />construction of the project. The Grand Valley Water Users Association wants to <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.