Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />, <br /> <br /> <br />MAY, 9,2003 9:56AM <br /> <br />LEAVENWORTH & KARP <br /> <br />NO, 915 <br /> <br />p, 3/4 <br /> <br />^ <br /> <br />Ll<lAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C. <br /> <br />Page 2 <br />May 9,2003 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />renewal. Further, we appreciate the Bureau's willingness to model the effects of implementing the <br />2012 Agreement, together with other real world circumstances such as the release restriction on <br />Green Mountain Reservoir, on Reudi Reservoir storage. This analysis has been helpful in providing <br />practical advice to our clienm. <br /> <br />Rifle, New- Castle, and Mid Valley continu~ to believe that certain aspects of the 2012 <br />Agreement violate important legal and equitable considerations. As discussed in the accompanying <br />joint letter from the Basalt Water Conservancy District and the Colorado River Water Conservation <br />District (''joint letter'~. there are sound legal groundS for subordinating the 2012 Agreement to the <br />existing 6,135 acre--feet of existing Round II contrad:s. Additionally, Rifle, New Castle, and Mid <br />Valley continue to believe that the predominant use of Reudi Reservoir to provide water for the <br />Recovery Program places an inequitable burden on the West Slope in general, and Reudi Reservoir <br />Round n contractees in particular. hnplementation of the Programmatic Biological Opinion <br />(''PBO'') stands to benefit all water users in the Colorado River Basin, Despite the fact that the PBO <br />benefits literally millions of water users, the current $tructure of the 2012 Agreement saddles only <br />Reudi Reservoir Round II contractees with the burden of a possible water shortage resulting from <br />the PBO's implementation. 'While no one is discussing the possibility that implementation of the <br />PBO may curtail municipal water services to Denver, Colorado Springs, or Grand Valley entities, . <br />if the 2012 Agreement causes II shortage in Reudi Reservoir that reduces the amount of water <br />available to Round n contractees, there is a very real possibility that municipal water services may <br />be curtailed in Rifle, New Castle and the area served by Mid Valley. Further, the predominant use <br />ofReudi Reservoir to provide water for the implementation of the PBO exhausm the last substantive <br />supply of water available to the Roaring Fork Valley for future economic growth and beneficial use. <br />Using Reudi Reservoir water to benefit the Front ~ge (through implementation of the PBO) at <br />the expense of current and future beneficial use ofReUdi Reservoir water on the West Slope violates <br />the spirit and letter oftha lawenactingthe't'lIycArkf'rojwt. <br /> <br />Despite these very substantial concerns witMhe 2012 Agreement, my clients have decided <br />not to oppose the ratification of the 2012 Agreement by the Colorado Water Conservation Board. <br />Rifle, New Castle, and Mid Valley are generally supportive of the goals of the Recovery Program <br />and the implementation of the PBO. Further, based on the analysis that the Bureau has provided, <br />it does not appear that the implementation of the 2012 Agreement will cause a shortage in Reudi <br />Reservoir that would trigger a curtailment of municipal water services by our clients. For these <br />reasons, Rifle, New Castle, and Mid Valley are willing to overlook the 2012 Agreement's legal and <br />equitable deficiencies for now in order to help the Recovery Program move forward. <br />, <br /> <br />That said, Rifle, New Castle, and Mid Valley all reserve the right to oppose, object to, or <br />litigate issues related to the 2012 Agreement in the eyent that the Bureau's analysis misses the mark <br />and shortages materialize at Reudi Reservoir. Ouri clients are also of the opinion that a sholiage <br />caused by the implementation of the 2012 Agreem~t may constitute a violation of their existing . <br />Round II contracm. Further. Rifle, N f:W Castle, and Mid Valley vehemently oppose any preferential <br />renewal of the 2012 Agreement in the year 2013 and beyond. Rifle, New Castle and Mid Valley <br />believe that the Bureau and Recovery Program must take an active role in the process mandated by <br /> <br />I:~OO:S\Cliwu\IW1o\2\Lcttetl!\scehCl~0G0-1..Wp4 <br />