Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />160f18 <br /> <br />,) <br /> <br />"In the Districts' view, the term insofar as available means that Reclamation is <br />obligated to make releases from the Unit to satisfy downstream seniors, unless <br />the water surface elevation at Blue Mesa is below the minimum necessary to <br />operate the Blue Mesa power plant. " <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The USBR has NOT been operating Aspinall in strict accordance with this <br />interpretation and this has been a non-issue except during extreme droughts like 1977 <br />and 2002. The USSR interprets this as an obligation to release water in a manner that <br />does not increase the amount or timing of administrative calls to upstream junior <br />rights. <br /> <br />Attachmenl B is a 1994 letter from the CWCB to the USBR regarding operation of <br />the Aspinall Unit. In that letter, the CWCB suggests a balance in the amount of water <br />provided to downstream users and requests the USBR to provide downstream senior <br />users what has been historically available to avoid impacts to upstream juniors, and <br />requests the USBR attempt in drought years to provide addilional water if possible, <br />particularly ifthe USSR is releasing water for the Redlands fish ladder. <br /> <br />3. Releases to the Redlands fish ladder <br />The contract between the CWCB, USBR and USFWS to provide water from the <br />Aspinall Unit to the Redlands fish ladder expires in August 2005 and will not be <br />renewed by USBR. The USBR plans to incorporate these fish ladder releases and <br />potentially increased releases for the newly construcled fish screen on the Redlands <br />canal into the EIS process. The USBR has taken the position that they can release <br />water directly to the fish ladder without a contract because that is a USBR owned <br />structure, bul that they cannot release the extra water for "migralion flows" <br />downstream ofthe fish ladder since that additional water cannot be used by the <br />structure. This interpretation is has been deemed in compliance with stale water law <br />and administration practices by lhe Division 4 Water Engineer. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />4. DescriDtion of current and most reasonable future oDerations <br />The No Action Alternative is the basis for comparing the impacts of various <br />alternatives in the EIS and therefore what is included in the No Action Alternalive <br />will expand or narrow the range of impacts identified. <br /> <br />In the past decade, the USSR has changed Aspinall operations to be more <br />environmentally friendly. Changes such as shaping potentially excess water into a <br />spring peak and summer releases for the fish ladder were initiated for the benefit of <br />lhe endangered fish but provide olher environmental benefits as well. The USSR <br />therefore plans to include these recent operational changes in the No Action <br />Alternative. This will lessen the impacls of the Action Alternatives as compared to <br />the No Action Alternative and will not describe or analyze the beneficial and <br />detrimental impacts of these recent operational changes. Some have suggested lhe <br />USSR use typical pre-1990 operation as the No Action Alternative and include the <br />recenl operational changes as part of every Action Alternative so that the full impacts <br />are considered. CWCB staff suggests that as a minimum, the impacts oflhese recent <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Flood Protection. Water Project Planning and Financing. Stream and lake Protection <br />Water Supply Protection. Conservation Planning <br />