BOARD02372 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, Mr. Mark Wondzell March 4, 1999 Page 3 of6 \ ;, . based on an unproven assumption that 1933 conditions represent a natural, stable norm, rather than simply a transitory condition in a dynamic system. Interaction with Aspinall unit rights Because of the issues concerning proper application of the reserved rights doctrine, a co- equal priority with Aspinall project rights is a step in the right direction. The current proposal for a co-equal priority with Aspinall, however, raises far more questions than it answers. While co-equal priorities exist elsewhere in the state, effective administration of a co-equal priority between rights of this magnitude and complexity will require further detail about the operation of each priority. The list of "shifting priorities" presented at the public meetings gives no bases for administration under Colorado's water right system, and no information to other parties along the river whose water supplies and other interests will be de facto affected by the interaction between the proposed Monument rights and the Aspinall project rights. Water users need to know how the NPS and Reclamation will determine which water right is being used at any time and how flows are accounted for. Specific operating criteria may need to be developed through a public process and incIuaed in the quantification decree or memorialized in an MOU or other formal docum'ent which could be incorporated into that decree. . The Board has previously expressed its opinion on the priority of various uses of the Aspinall project. (See attached letter of November 22, 1994.) The Board is unlikely to be able to accept any proposal that defeats or significantly impairs those uses. As mentioned above, the Board will not be able to fully evaluate and accept any proposal until such proposal can be evaluated along with the results of the Aspinall Section 7 consultation. Other Issues and Questions · How will this proposal affect Aspinall's flood-control purposes? Because the proposal calls for sustained peaks of up to 12,000 cfs, which can only be obtained through uncontrolled spills, how will dam safety and the safety of downstream property and residents be insured? Will the proposal result in unreasonable and costly wear and tear on project spillways? Will it require unreasonable and costly channel modifications and diking to protect downstream properties? If so, will such modifications be acceptable to the Service? Who will bear the cost of the increased operation and maintenance expenses associated with these types of operational changes? What effect will there be on ice-jam problems above Aspinall if reservoir elevations are kept higher during the winter to provide uncontrolled spills during spring runoff'? .