BOARD00582

• Board Meeting Date: 5/19/2003
• Description: WSP Section - Ruedi Reservoir - Proposed Contract to Deliver 10,825 AF Annually to Endangered Fish in the 15-Mile Reach Through 2012
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

~3 11,5S PROM,BALCOMB & GREEN PC
,
I~
I ,
I

ID~S70845e902

PAGE

3/7

. BASALT WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT & COLORADO RIVER WATER CONSERII' A TION.DISTRICT

.

.

Brian Person, Bureau of Reclamation
Randy Seaholm, Colorado Water Conservation Board

May 9, 2003
Page 2 of 3

before, we do not agree that the proposed shortage provision is either fair or legally sound.
For Randy's convenience in presenting our position to the Colorado Water Conservation
Board, we have attached a copy of our prior joint letter dated April 11, 2003 which explains
the legal basis for treating the initial 6,135 acrefeet of Ruedi Round IT contracts preferentially
to the 2012 Agreement in the allocation of any shortages.

We remain concerned about the long-term reliability of Ruedi Reservoir to provide
its committed West Slope beneficial uses. Our concern is based upon a number of reasons
which we will summarize below.

First, we are concerned about the potential renewal of the 2012 Agreement In order
for the Recovery Program to succeed, it is likely that substantial progress must be made on
all of the "recovery elements" included in the IS-Mile Reach Programmatic Biological
Opinion. Completion of the 2012 Agreement will formalize water deliveries that have been
on-going under interim contracts. But if other recovery elements are not successful, the Fish
and Wildlife Service will try to renew this agreement at its termination in 2012. . So our
concern extends beyond 2012.

Second, we are very concerned that otherrecovery elements are not progressing. The
Coordinated Facilities Operations Study does not appear to have identified a consensus
operation. Equally or more significantly, the effort of the water users to provide a
. permanent 10,285 acre foot water supply is languishing as an unfocused effort lacking in
leadership and continuity. Our organizations believe that neither the River District nor
Denver Water Department will be in a position to extend their interim deliveries from
Wolford and Williams Fork Reservoirs when their temporary arrangements for the 10,825
acre feet expire.

Finally, Ruedi contractors are concerned that the current Green Mountain Reservoir
release restriction must be resolved by fixing Green Mountain or by replacing the restricted
capacity. If thatis not done, Reclamation and others may look toward the annual borrowing
of Ruedi Reservoir regUlatory capacity to partially replace Green Mountain capacity as a de
facto institutionalized arrangement.

All of those concerns relate to the core principle that Ruedi Reservoir must not
become essentially the sole source of stotage water supplies for fish habitat under the 15"
Mile Reach PEO. Progress must be made on the non-Ruedi recovexy elements, and Green
Mountain capacity must be restored both to relieve the burden on Ruedi and to better assUre