Laserfiche WebLink
this issue when as we seek to settle existing instream claims and file for additional instream flows <br />in the Yampa basin. <br />WHITE RIVER BASIN <br />Endangered Fish Recovery Program — White River Flow Recommendations - Flow <br />recommendations due on the White River on . The CWCB will then need to take action to <br />file instream flow water right applications based on these recommendations by <br />GUNNISON RIVER BASIN <br />Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument - Federal Reserved Right. The <br />Supreme Court in USA v Denver found an unquantified federal "reserved water right" exists for the <br />Monument. U.S. Department of Interior Agencies (USBR and NPS) and the State have been <br />discussing a water service contract that would assist in the quantification of the reserved right. The <br />Colorado Department of Natural Resources including CWCB, CDWR, CDOW, and Attorney <br />General, has decided that they well formally participate in the contract development and NEPA <br />process as "cooperating agencies" and have been involved at the "cooperating agency" level to this <br />point. Other water users in the basin participating at the "cooperating agency" level include the <br />CRWCD, UGRWCD and UVWUA. This contract does not eliminate the need for NPS to quantify <br />the reserved water right. <br />Aspinall Unit — Water Right Administration - Reclamation provided notice on July, 1994 that <br />no calls based on Aspinall rights are expected until July, 1995 or later. A call could be triggered by <br />the agreements between Reclamation, National Park Service (NPS) and Fish and Wildlife Service <br />(FWS) to protect flows past the Gunnison Tunnel and Redlands Diversion which would then result in <br />the Division Engineer having to put the Gunnison mainstem under strict administration. If <br />Reclamation and FWS enter into a contract that delivers water past the Gunnison Tunnel and <br />Redlands it could result in calls against junior water users above the Redlands or the Gunnison <br />Tunnel which have not occurred since Blue Mesa was built. Presently, Reclamation will provide 6 <br />month prior notice to actually placing a call under their Aspinall rights. The potential for calls and <br />federal contracting problems related to the Reclamation Reform Act have existing water users and <br />local interests very disturbed. Reclamation, state, and local interests have been developing and <br />evaluating different alternatives but only one viable solution is seen at present: to provide a pool in <br />Blue Mesa similar in concept to the pool in Green Mountain. Development of an augmentation plan <br />to achieve this goal is in progress. <br />Upper Gunnison River WCD Augmentation Plan - The Consumptive Use Model developed <br />as part of the CRDSS has been modified and used to develop the estimates of consumptive use by <br />individual ditches required to provide the basis for the development of this augmentation plan. <br />Currently, three options for implementing the plan are being explored. <br />Implementation of the 60,000 AF Subordination of Aspinall Unit Water to Upstream <br />Development — USBR has affirmed as recently as August 8, 1996 that they are in agreement with <br />the 60,000 AF subordination. This commitment could be implemented through the augmentation <br />plan mentioned above or by another means. <br />Aspinall Unit - ESA Section 7 Issues - The 5 -year research period required by the U.S. <br />Fish and Wildlife Service was completed in 1997 with all research flows requested by the <br />C;\msoffice \wi nword \document \basinissues <br />December 30, 1997 <br />Page 8 of 19 <br />