Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />4. In addition, SECWCD, CSU and Pueblo believe that provisions within decrees allowing <br />for transmountain diversion held by the three water providers, the Congressionally- <br />approved Operating Principles for the Frying-Arkansas Project, or agreements made by <br />CSU, limit the amount, time, place and manner of water diversions out of west slope water <br />basins. Certainly, all of the transmountain water rights held by the three water providers <br />are subject to being curtailed when the water rights are not in priority. <br /> <br />5. The Colorado River Water Conservation District (CRWCD) and the Rio Grande Water <br />Conservancy District have indicated concerns that the proposed Warren Act amendments <br />will facilitate additional transmountain diversions. The CRWCD has proposed language <br />for inclusion in the Warren Act proposal dated July 8, 1999 that it suggests would address <br />this concern. The three water providers believe that the CRWCD's language is broad and <br />may contain elements that are not appropriate for inclusion in federal legislation, and <br />places additional restrictions on existing transmountain diversions that are already limited <br />by decree and authorization. <br /> <br />6. SECWCD, CSU and Pueblo offer the following conceptual alternative for discussion: <br /> <br />1. <br /> <br />Colorado transmountain diverters from the Colorado River basin would not utilize <br />storage space available under Warren Act contracts for purposes of storing water <br />obtained pursuant to new water right decrees for transbasin diversions, absent <br />compliance with appropriate mitigation requirements as established by the state. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />2. If Colorado transmountain diverters from the Colorado River basin did file any <br />new water rights applications, the contracts to store new water under amendments <br />to the Warren Act would be subject to review and approval by the Colorado River <br />Water Conservation District and directly affected water conservancy districts. <br /> <br />[The manner in which paragraphs 6 a and b reconcile may necessitate further discussion.] <br /> <br />7. SECWCD , CSU and Pueblo believe our concept to prohibit further transmountain <br />diversions that may be facilitated through Warren Act contracts in Reclamation facilities <br />can address the concerns of the CRWCD and Rio Grande WCD while allowing us to meet <br />future storage demands with existing facilities. <br /> <br />. <br />