ALP 4

Comments of Animas -La Plata Operation, Maintenance and Replacement Association
on the State Engineer's Draft Protocol for Administration of the ALP Project
June 13, 2012
Page 2 of 3
Definitions: A definition section should be added to include definitions of terms used, but
not defined, in the Protocol (or elsewhere) (e.g. "paper fill ") and to revise (and include in
one section) definitions for important terms /concepts. We have concerns about the
following terms:
Non - stored Allocations: Refers to water not placed in storage but available for
Project diversions.
Storable Flow: The term suggests water diverted for storage and accounted
toward the storage rights; perhaps the term Divertible Flow would be better.
Project Flow Rate: The Draft Protocol is not very clear on what this is. It should
be defined in terms of the "Maximum Project Flow Rate ": the DPP capacity
(approximately 286 to 300 cfs), plus allowance for transit losses from Teft to the
DPP, which should be quantified. Then, specify that the allowable DPP diversion
is limited to (1) the Maximum Project Flow Rate, less the sum of the flow to be
diverted as Non - stored Allocation at downstream points plus transit losses from
DPP to the downstream points, but limited overall by the flows available at the
original points of diversion (the Teft Limitations -- called out as a separate
definition) and (2) the minimum bypasses (again, set this out as a separate
definition); the total Project diversions, comprising all diversions at the DPP and
downstream diversions on account of delivery of Non - stored Allocations, are
limited to the Maximum Project Flow Rate, further limited by the Teft
Limitations, and must ensure compliance with the minimum bypasses.
Section III (Description of Project Works). The reference to 280 cfs capacity in section
III.A should be changed based on current testing, to reflect the peak capacity of the
pumps at 286 -300 cfs. Section III.B. , should clarify that the FSEIS requires, in times of
shortage, for Project users to dip into the Inactive Pool to meet demands. The DPP
should be described separately from the inlet conduit, consistent with the description
elsewhere in the Draft Protocol.
Section IV (Description of Tribal Decrees). Section IV does not adequately describe the
nature of the Tribal water rights under the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement
Agreement and under the W- 1603 -76 F and 76J decrees. The Protocol should clarify the
nature of these settlement rights, both to provide a more accurate historical representation
of the ALP project and to highlight where the Tribal water rights have additional
protections (e.g,, the rights are not subject to abandonment under Colorado law).
Section V (Allocations): This section acknowledges that Reclamation will perform the
accounting to ensure compliance with the applicable decrees and authorizations, but we
suggest there should be additional clarification regarding the SEO's role. The 57,100 AF
average annual depletion limit under federal law should not be imported to the Protocol
for use and enforcement by the State of Colorado.