My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00582
CWCB
>
Chatfield Mitigation
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
BOARD00582
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:52:06 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:40:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
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
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />MAY-08-03 12.00 FROM.BALCOMB & GRBBN PC <br /> <br />ID.8708468802 <br /> <br />PAGB 6/17 <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />. . <br /> <br />BASALT WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT,& COLORADO RlVER.WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT . <br /> <br />Brian Person, Bureau of Reclamation <br />Randy Seaholm, Colorado Water Conservation Board <br /> <br />April 11, 2003 <br />Page 2 of 3 <br /> <br />2012 Agreement or the balance of Round II contracts (i.e., the remaining 10,865 acre feet of <br />Round II sales). The 2012 Agreement and the 10,685 balance of Round II contracts should <br />share shortages proportionately and before the 6,135 acre feet of Round II contracts. <br /> <br />This request is rooted in the Biological Opinions that approved the Round II sales. <br />The January 1999 Biological Opinion for the Round II sales allowed Reclamation to proceed <br />with contracts for 6,135 acre feet of West Slope use from Ruedi Reservoir. That Opinion <br />recognized, m paragraph 4 of the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative, that the 15-Mile <br />Reach Programmatic Biological Oproion "wiU. take precedence over this amended opinion." <br />That Opinion also provided, that upon cotnpleti<>:t'\ of the 15-Mile Reach PBO and the <br />completion of the 2012 Agreement, Reclamation could contract for the additional 10,865 of <br />West Slope Round II water. Both the "precedence" of the IS-Mile Reach PBO and <br />completion of the 2012 Agreement as a condition for contracting the additional Round II <br />water are recognized in the IS-Mile Reach PBO. <br /> <br />. It is clear that completion of the 2012 Agreement is not a condition for the 6,135 acre. <br />feet of initial Round II sales. The IS-Mile Reach PBO, which has "taken precedence" over <br />the January 1999 Opinion for Round II sale$, must remain in force for all of the Category I <br />and Category II depletions which are subjept to and benefit from the 15"Mile Reach PBO. <br />The 6,135 acre feet of contracts cannot be s~lectively burdened with the 2012 Agreement's <br />completion any more than it could be selectively limited by completion of other elements <br />of, the IS-Mile Reach PBO, such as the completion of "CFOPS." <br /> <br />In summary, the effect of the two Biblogical Opinions was to separate the Round II <br />water sales into an initial issuance up to 6,135 acre feet witho"lt the req'f.lirement for the 2012 <br />Agreement and a subsequent issuance of the additional contracts up to 10,865 acre feet <br />conditioned on the completion of that Agr$ement. Round II contracts, including the 2012 <br />Agreement if it is considered a Round II contract, were effectively divided rota a Round II <br />A and a Round II B in terms of their relationship to the need for the 2012 Agreement. It <br />would be contrary to the provisions of the Biological Opinions and the issued and pending <br />Round II contracts to provide for shortage bf the Round II A contracts on the same basis as <br />the 2012 Agreement. .. , <br /> <br />A related concern is the Service's Rroposed additional recital "s," which does not <br />accurately convey the history of the Biological Opinions as described above. That recital <br />should be revised to reflect that history. <br /> <br />. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.