BOARD00612

• Board Meeting Date: 7/13/1998
• Description: WSP Section - Colorado River Basin Issues - Ruedi Reservoir Round II Contracts and Annual Contract for Endangered Fish
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

" July 13-14, 1998 Board Meeting
Agenda Item 26k
Page 5 of 8

....

.

.

.

7. ISSUE: Negotiate "Poison Pill" language that will void the contract if certain events occur
or if demands are imposed that are not acceptable to water users. This would likely be the
same "Poison Pill" language which the Board developedfor inclusion in our instream
flow water right cases. It would be appropriate for the Interim Agreement, but not
necessarily neededfor the annual contract. Such language should be consistent with the
Programmatic Biological Opinion. Some suggested language is included in our
recommendation.

LIST OF CONCERNS

A number of concerns have been raised with the proposed revisions by various constituents as
listed below:

I. Is this discussion draft intended to serve as a proposed amendment to the 1995 Ruedi
Round II Biological Opinion? Please confirm. Yes, it is intended to form the foundation
for an amended 1995 Biological Opinion.

2. It should be clearly stated in any amendment to the Biological Opinion that requirements
under the Biological Opinion for lease agreements for Ruedi water will be met within the
limitations of the authorizing legislation and operating principles of the Fryingpan-
Arkansas Project. The 1995 Ruedi Round II Biological Opinion says, "Specific terms of
the agreement (agreement to make water available for the fish) will take into account... and
any operating constraints associated with the authorizing legislation for the reservoir." Tbat
language should be retained in any amendment to the Biological Opinion and/or any
agreements for the lease of Ruedi water for the Recovery Program. We agree and believe
that by amending the 1995 Biological Opinion as suggested, that the amended Biological
Opinion would still reflect this language.

3. Any portion of the first 10,825 AF of Ruedi water-from the 21,650 AF lease to the Service
that is needed to meet increases in demand on the West slope should be made available for
contracting without reconsultation - this approach is consistent with what is now being
proposed in the Programmatic Biological Opinion. Under the RP A's for Category I
Depletions in the draft Programmatic Biological Opinion, it lists a 15-year lease of 10,825
AF of water from Ruedi , but it states the following, "As portions of the
10, 825 AF are contracted, the amount of water in the lease agreement automatically
decreases." It's important that the same concept apply in the Ruedi Biological Opinion. We
agree, the proposed revisions for the Ruedi Biological Opinion should be kept consistent
with the Programmatic Biological Opinion.

4. Tbe second 10,825 AF of Ruedi water made available under the proposed agreement
should be subject to reduction as portions ofRuedi Water are made available on a
permanent basis through legislative action. This recognizes Ruedi's possible contribution
to the RP A in the draft Programmatic Biological Opinion calling for a permanent source