Laserfiche WebLink
Assuming the Round II sales indicated are consummated, the USFWS has expressed an interest <br />in acquiring the remaining water available. This would make the 2nd 10,000 AF a more less <br />permanent arrangement and provide at least another 1,273 AF depending on how many entities <br />elect to follow through on the purchase of the Round II requests. In addition, the Department of <br />Energy has also asked to purchase any remaining space for n�val oil shale reservers and is really <br />desirous of a total of 49,000 AF. The requests of DOE and the USFWS have prompted numerous <br />letters to the CWCB asking the CWCB to purchase any remaining Ruedi space and water after <br />Round I and II sales. <br />Subsequently, the CWCB has learned that Reclamation's Upper Colorado Region supports <br />conveying an� unsold water to the USFWS for the Endangered Fish. Utilizing the water i* ' <br />endangered fish purposes on a temporary basis in the short run is probably acceptable. However, <br />diversion for fishery purposes on a permanent basis would in fact defeat the primary project <br />authorizations and the State of Colorado objects to such a long term use. In fact, <br />comments made at June 8, 1994 meeting on Ruedi operations indicate an unhappy west slope <br />constituency that could make it difficult to continue releasing water for endangered fish purposes. <br />Given the growing unrest on the west slope surrounding Ruedi Round II sales and the fact that <br />Reclamations review of it's contracting process is now complete, we would strongly encourage <br />Reclamation to complete Ruedi Round II sales as soon as possible. <br />Furthermore, we would strongly urge Reclamation to reconsider some ruin,_91-& contract <br />terms. First, a contract term of 25 -years is totally unacceptable. A number of entities seeking <br />contracts are districts or municipalities supplying domestic water. A 25 -year contract with these <br />entities is simply not acceptable since they cannot demonstrate to any Colorado Water Court they <br />have a relatively firm water supply under which to permit growth to occur. We understand that <br />Reclamation has environmental laws to comply with, but a permanent contract with conservation of <br />mitigation measures and even penalties for non - compliance would be vastly superior to any 25 -year <br />contract. <br />Colorado would like to assure its citizens a stable water supply and is committed under the <br />