Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, <br /> <br />Mr. Mark WondzelI <br />March 4, 1999 <br />Page 5 of6 <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />delay completion of the currently proposed agreement that the parties have worked <br />for years to try and bring to fruition? <br />· The refill rights for Taylor Park Reservoir are junior to the proposed co-equal <br />priorities for the Aspinall Unit and the Monument, which raises the question of how <br />they would be affected by the Monument's proposed rights. <br />· What is the impact of the proposed legislation to change the Monument to a National <br />Park, especially if the legislation is amended as it works its way through Congress? <br /> <br />None of these questions are necessarily fatal to eventual settlement, but they clearly <br />demonstrate why further discussion and compromise is warranted. For these reasons, and <br />others, the Board is encouraged by the proposed subordination of Monument rights to at <br />least a co-equal priority with the Aspinall unit's rights. This accurately reflects the reality <br />that reserved rights are based on implied Congressional intent, an intent that must be <br />evaluated in light of Congress' authorization of a major multiple-purpose storage unit <br />upstream, as well as the creation of a national recreation area concurrently that surrounds <br />that multi-purpose storage project. I want to thank the NPS for taking this step, I look <br />forward to discussing these issues with you and, ultimately, to the fmal quantification of <br />the Monument's reserved water rights. <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br />. '??t~:../#-'LlL- <br /> <br />D. Randolph Seaholm <br />Chief, Interstate Streams Investigations <br /> <br />. <br />