BOARD01421

• Board Meeting Date: 9/13/2005
• Description: WSP Section - Aspinall EIS - No Action Alternative Discussion
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

~

."

Agenda Item 16
September 13-14,2005 Board Meeting
Page 3 of4

.

commented on the CWCB reservation language. The CRWCD has argued for both the 15,000 AF
amount from SWSI and for the entire 60,000 AF subordination agreement amount. It is difficult to
understand how reasonably foreseeable future depletion can be interpreted to include the entire 60,000
AF for the upper Gunnison basin, which is holding steadily below 9000 AF of junior depletions, but
little to none for the lower Gunnison basin, which is experiencing significant population growth.
Comments from the Uncompaghre Valley Water Users Association (UVWUA) are supportive of the
CWCB position and reflect the diverse views on this issue within the basin.

The CRWCD also argues that the entire yield of Aspinall is needed to meet downslream delivery
requirements for the Colorado River Compact. The CRWCD argument merges the authorized purpose
of storing water for beneficial consumptive use within Colorado with the purpose of providing water
for downstream delivery. These are clearly two separate purposes within the CRSP Act. The
CRWCD argument cites language from the Economic Justification Report for the Aspinall Unit. Read
in its enlirely, the language refers only to critical periods of subnormal runoff after consumption in the
Upper Basin has reached 6.2 MAF. Even in the recent severe drought, releases from the Aspinall Unil
to Lake Powell were not contemplated by Reclamation nor by the seven states.

.

CRWCD further states that further development of water from Aspinall would put all existing users in
Colorado and other Upper Basin states at risk from a Lower Basin call. Staff strongly disagrees with
this hypothesis. The largest water users in the Gunnison Basin have priority dales prior to 1922 and
are therefore exempt from any Lower Basin call. The same holds true for many ofthe water uses
throughout the basin within Colorado. The water users most at risk under a Lower Basin call are the
transmountain diverters. Further, in times of extreme drought, local administrative calls are likely to
pre-date 1922 and therefore result in no additional water from a Lower Basin call. Additional, future
Aspinall contracts would contain provisions that, in the unlikely event of a Lower Basin call,
Reclamation would not provide water for those contracl users and therefore the new users would be
called out prior to any existing user. Detailed information regarding this matter is included in the
CWCB comment letter in Attachment C.

Other significant issues in the recent comment letters include releases for the Redlands fish ladder and
the interpretation ofCA5782. Both items were discussed in the March 2005 CWCB board
memorandum. Reclamation continues to assert that it can release water for the purpose of operating
the fish ladder and fish screen, but cannot release water specifically for migration flows without a
contract. Reclamation continues to disagree with certain Gunnison basin parties as to the extent of its
obligation to deliver waler to downstream users under CA5782.

Another comment of interest is the clarification that the No Action Alternative can include bundling
excess water inlo a spring peak only as it is done under current operations. Changes in storage and
release operations to provide additional water should be considered as Action Alternatives. Staff
agrees with this comment.

Recommendations

.

Staff regrets that consensus could not be reached on the issue of future depletions with the Colorado
River Water Conservation District and the parties that they represent. Staff recommends that lhe
Board concur with staff comments submitted to Reclamalion in May and Augusl and direct staff to

Flood Protection. Water Project Planning and Finance. Stream and lake Protection
Water Supply Protection. Conservation Planning