Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. . <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Colorado River Use: According to Reclamation, in 1999 California's net water usage from the <br />Lower Colorado River totaled 5.1 million acre-feet, Arizona's 2.58 million acre-feet and Nevada's <br />289,500 acre-feet, compared with their respective compact apportionment of 4.4 million acre-feet, 2.8 <br />million acre-feet and 300,000 acre-feet (7.5 million acre-feet). Net water use was up 355,800 acre-feet <br />over 1998, with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California taking 138,942 acre-feet more <br />(or 1.212 million acre-feet in 1999, its total entitlement). Also, the Palo Verde Irrigation District took <br />468,888 acre-feet more (up 41,775 acre-feet), while other irrigation districts reduced their use. Imperial <br />ill uses dropped 12,568 acre-feet. (Water Strategist, July/August 2000). <br /> <br />Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria - The comment period on the Draft Environmental <br />Impact Statement closed on Sept. 8. A copy of the comment letter sent by Greg Walcher on behalf of <br />Colorado is attached. The Colorado River Water Conservation District and the Upper Colorado River <br />Commission sent similar letters supporting the adoption of the seven-state proposal as the preferred <br />alternative. Letters opposing the criteria were sent by the Union Park Water Authority (Arapahoe <br />County, Parker Water & Sanitation District, Rangeview Metropolitan District, and the Arapahoe County <br />Water and Wastewater Authority) and David Miller. While we did not attend the field hearings, it was <br />reported that 25 people attended the meeting in Ontario, California, 16 people attended the Las Vegas <br />meeting, 13 people attended the Salt Lake City meeting, and 25 people attended the Phoenix meeting. <br />There was some opposition expressed at the Salt Lake City meeting by environmental groups from <br />Moab, otherwise, the public comments were generally supportive. <br /> <br />Glen Canyon Adaptive Management - Via Section 203 of H.R. 4733, the Energy and Water <br />Development Appropriations Act for 2001, efforts are being made to cap funding of monitoring and <br />research authorized by section 1807 of the Grand Canyon Protection Act. This has drawn opposition <br />from Arizona Game and Fish as well as some environmental groups such as Southwest Rivers. Given <br />that some of these organizations are working hard to expand the adaptive management program beyond <br />what was originally intended this is an appropriate action for power users to pursue. The states are in <br />general agreement that no further action on their part is required at this time. <br /> <br />Temporary Green Mountain Reservoir Municipal Recreation Agreement - On September 8 <br />Reclamation entered into a interruptible "if and when" contract with the City of Grand Junction for the <br />delivery of up to 10,000 acre-feet from the Green Mountain Reservoir Historic Users Pool. The water <br />will be used for non-consumptive recreational purposes and will be delivered in consultation with the <br />USFWS. <br /> <br />Instream Flow Monitoring/Hunter Creek "Call": Much of Colorado has been experiencing <br />drought-like conditions and stream flows have been below average in many basins. In late August, the <br />City of Aspen alerted us about extremely low flow conditions in Hunter Creek. <br /> <br />The Board has original instream flow appropriations on Hunter Creek as well as senior donated <br />rights acquired from the City of Aspen. Flow measurements reported to staff were as low as 1.5 cfs. <br />The Board's most senior donated right is for 15 cfs with an 1886 appropriation date. <br /> <br />Based on this information, we contacted the Division 5 engineer and initiated an investigation to <br />collect information to determine the cause of the low flows; determine whether or not all rights on the <br />stream were being administered in priority; and develop a strategy to ensure that the Board's rights <br />would be preserved to a reasonable degree. On Aug. 31 we prepared an official written Call and faxed it <br />to the Division 5 Engineer. <br /> <br />After a field investigation and a thorough analysis of all water rights on the stream, the Water <br />Commissioner reported that there were no junior users diverting water on Hunter Creek. In addition, it <br />was reported that Hunter Creek was receiving 0.5 cfs past the Red Mountain Extension and an estimated <br />1.5-cfs was being released by the Salvation Ditch into Hunter Creek just above the confluence of Hunter <br />10 <br />