Board Meeting 11/03/1983

• Board Meeting Date: 11/3/1983
• Description: Minutes, Agenda, Memorandums November 03,04, 1983
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

there was a need for reformulating previously proposed projects •
such as the San Miguel.
Mr. Rick Gold, newly appointed Project Manager for the
Bureau ' s Durango Office, briefly summarized the objectives of
such a study and stated that the proposal presented to the Board
at the September meeting was, in his mind, a discussion document
only and the study would proceed only with strong showing of
local support and need.
Mr. Danielson expressed concern and warned against a federal
agency conducting a management study of the state 's water without
meaningful state participation.
Mr. Kroeger moved, seconded by Mr. Johnston, that the Board
consent to the study contingent upon favorable resolution of the
three issues raised by Mr. McDonald. Motion adopted unanimously
by voice vote.
Item 17 - Aspinall Unit
a. Exercise of Water Rights
Chairman Vandemoer called on Mr. McDonald to discuss this
item. Mr. McDonald called attention to the State Engineer ' s
report in which Mr. Danielson explained the water rights
administration issues stemming from the recent groundwater well •
permits filed by the City of Gunnison. (See Item 6 - State
Engineer ' s Report. )
Mr. McDonald briefly traced the historical record of this
issue and pointed out that after authorization of the Aspinall
Unit and during preparation of the feasibility report for the
Unit, local interests in the Upper Gunnison River basin expressed
concern over the fact that construction of the Unit could
preclude upstream development of waters of the Gunnison River.
To alleviate this concern and in order that future
developments in the Upper Gunnison River Basin may be assured of
rights to the use of water, policy discussions between the Bureau
of Reclamation, local interests and the Board called for the
United States (Bureau of Reclamation) to subordinate diversion
and storage rights of the Aspinall Unit to future developments
upstream. The aggregate amount of upstream depletions for which
the priority of the Aspinall Unit may be waived was not
determined at that time although an upstream depletion of 60, 000
acre-feet was allowed in the operation studies for the Aspinall
Unit in the determination of the water supply available for power
generation.
Lengthy discussion by members ensued relevant to the Board ' s
role in the amicable resolution of this issue. Mr. Johnston
moved, seconded by Mr. Robbins, that Messrs. McDonald and •
-14-