Pueblo RICD Hearing July 2002 Case No. 2-01CW160

Home Browse Search

Friday, May 24, 2002 4:06 PM Harold E. Miskel 7192608128 p.03 05/24/2002 11:27 S.E. WATER CONSERVANCY 4 171926OB12B NO.138 903 :. ;,.. i 4►1VP Zg-FAI RF, Eli & WOODS•I.AND i, BUT LLP N0. 4244 P. 4 o03i004 HOLLAND & HART Lull, ArrORNEYS AT 4AW Lae E. Miller May 23, 2003 Page 2 The revised dry year exception faxed to the City Council late in the day on Monday, May 20, does little to alleviate these concerns. The five days in May that would be impacted by' paragraphs 1 and 2 of that proposal are too short a period to provide a meaningful benefit to the City of Pueblo. Although the two -month period (June l to July 31) Impacted by paragraphs 3 and 4 is certainly worth consideration, it has not escaped our attention that the average estimated flows for Scenario A2 (which models 2440 demand with full reoperations and enlargements) substantially exceed the Soo cfs curtailment threshold during the tune 1 through July 31 time period. Thus, utilization of a 650A of average trigger to rotnove curtailment thresholds only during June t through July 31 provides tittle benefit to the City of Pueblo. That concessioa is, in essence, offering the sleeves out of your vest. . Two of the changes to the agreement proposed by the PSOP Participants undermine the value of even the 100 cfs minimum flow offered. Pueblo Board of Water Works ( "PRWW ") diversions below the Dam decrease the amount of flow available in the RICO reach. Throughout our discussions, Pueblo has been informed that PBWW River diversions will be discontinued and will not reduce the flows that would be guaranteed by our agreement. Even the modeling done by Montgomery, Watson, Harz& assumes that PBWW diversions will occur at the daps, not below it. Given these assurances, it is remomable to expect that the flows guaranteed below the dam would not be reduced by PBWW diversions .should they continue to occur. Nevertheless, the proposal still allows River diversions by PBWW to decrease the amounts that are purported to be guaranteed. That omission, combined with the 7S cfs flow threshold at the Combined Flow Location, assure that less than SO cfs will actually flow through the RICI) reach during much of the year, This is not sufficient flow for even safe boat passage, nor is it consistent with the river restoration assumptions in the Legacy Project studies. There are also significant differances between the flora+ curtailment thresholds the City has proposed and those contained in the May I s counter- proposal_ While the City may bo able to agree to some additional step -downs during the shoulder months, it is not prepared to agree that only So eta need Pass through the City from September 8 through April 30, two - thirds of each year. Finally, Pueblo is unwilling to decrease its RICD water right to the curtailment thresholds and have those flows embodied in a Water Court decree when the ?SOP Participants' obligations to honor curtailment thresholds will evaporate if H.R. 3981 is not passed in the next two years. It can hardly be