Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Mark Wondzell <br />March 4, 1999 <br />Page 4 of 6 <br /> <br />· The Monument's reserved rights must not impair the authorized purposes of the <br />Aspinall Unit. For example, Reclamation and the State of Colorado contemplated <br />marketing 300,000 acre-feet from the Aspinall Unit upon its completion. How will <br />the Monument's reserved water rights affect the marketable yield of Aspinall, one of <br />the last major sources of water in central-western Colorado? How will it affect <br />Aspinall's historical ability to insulate the upper Gunnison basin from senior <br />downstream calls? Will there be any effect on the Aspinall Unit's ability to supply <br />water for compact delivery purposes should the need arise? <br />· Existing obligations of the Aspinall Unit to supply water to offset the depletion <br />impacts of the Dallas Creek and Dolores Projects and to the Redlands Fish Ladder <br />need to be resolved in order to understand the impacts of the Monument's reserved <br />right claim. Colorado maintains that the obligation to the Dallas Creek and Dolores <br />Projects is only the amount required to offset the consumptive use of water by those <br />projects and not 148,000 acre-feet as the Service would like. Furthermore, the project <br />consultations do not specify whether or not the water comes from the marketable <br />yield or from any water available from the Aspinall Unit as we have argued. Are <br />there other endangered fish needs? <br />· How will this proposal affect recreation values at the Curecanti National Recreation <br />Area? <br />· What wili be the effect on power generation, power prices, and .power revenues <br />accruing to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund? Will power repayment schedules <br />be significantly affected, and if so are those effects acceptable to the repayment <br />entities and to Congress? Will there be any impact on CRSP Power contracts or <br />renewals? <br />· What is the effect of claiming "all flow unappropriated as of 3/2/33," yet <br />subordinating to all water rights prior to November 13, 1957? This appears to have <br />the same effect as simply quantifying the right as all unappropriated flows as of <br />11/13/57, which would be less confusing and administratively more workable. What <br />does the NPS perceive to be. the purpose of structuring the claims as currently <br />proposed? The claim to "all unappropriated flows" also leads to questions about the <br />intended effect on conditional water rights, changes of existing water rights, <br />additional uses of decreed water rights up to their full decreed amount, and exempt <br />wells. <br />· While we support the recognition of the 60,000 acre-foot subordination as consistent <br />with Congress' intent, there are questions about implementation. The 60,000 acre- <br />foot subordination is recognized in a proposed agreement with Reclamation. All <br />parties would like for this agreement to be finalized as soon as possible. However, <br />the NPS is not a party to that contract and does not appear to have the same <br />contractual powers as does Reclamation. How will the subordination be forrilalized <br />and protected with respect to the Monument's reserved rights? How will the <br />Monument's reserved rights interact with the 60,000 acre-foot subordination? Will <br />another agreement be required? If another agreement is required, will it unnecessarily <br /> <br />t <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br />