Laserfiche WebLink
<br />language under item I above that would possibly remedy this situation, in lieu of language on p.17 <br />of the 6/28/99 draft, and still provide an opportunity for the Service to work with project sponsors <br />on direct project impacts. <br /> <br />7. Clarifications by Bureau of Reclamation. The following issues were raised with the Bureau of <br />Reclamation at the water users' meeting on July 8 in Glenwood Springs. Our understanding is that <br />Reclamation will address each of these issues at the July 19 meeting. <br /> <br />a. Status of excess surplus contract. In the discussions on this biological opinion, it was previously <br />agreed that Reclamation would develop a contract with municipalities in the l5-mile reach for <br />delivery of excess surplus water from Green Mountain Reservoir. This was agreed to by <br />Reclamation, water users, Fish and Wildlife Service, and environmentalists. Our understanding <br />is that meetings were held with the municipalities, and the municipalities have also agreed to <br />participate in such a contract. Implementation of the excess surplus contract is seen as a way of <br />meeting obligations for water delivery in a straight forward, legally defensible, and expeditious <br />manner. <br /> <br />Water users have recently been led to understand that Reclamation may repudiate this agreed <br />upon approach, and instead assert that it has the right to make these releases without any contract <br />for delivery in the IS-mile reach. Water users have also heard that a Solicitor's opinion may be <br />sought which asserts Reclamation's right to do so. <br /> <br />- ----..- l' <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />If it is true that Reclamation is pursuing such an approach, water users object in the strongest . <br />terms. The excess surplus contract approach was agreed upon as a means of expediting delivery <br />and achieving the objectives of previous agreements. Should Reclamation attempt to assert its <br />right to deliver without a contract, serious legal issues would have to be raised by the State of <br />Colorado. Resolution of these issues in court could result in years of delay in excess surplus <br />water delivery to the 15-mile reach, which all parties have agreed to. Further, all parties have <br />agreed to a simple mechanism for delivery of this water, including Reclamation. There is no <br />reason for Reclamation to assert legal rights which would only hamper implementation of the <br />excess surplus water delivery. <br /> <br />We understand that Reclamation will have representatives at the meeting on July 19 to discuss <br />the situation. <br /> <br />. \01' <br />b. Ruedi Reservoir releases in Categorv I and Categorv 2. On p. 61, paragraph c), a statement is ;.,k <br />made regarding inclusions in category I with respect to Ruedi Reservoir. " . . .Round 2 sales of oJ;. ./ <br />17,000 acre-feet as discussed in the Service's biological opinion to Reclamation dated May 26, r (p \ 7~ <br />1995 and as amended on January 6, 1999, . ..n indicating that the 17,000 acre-feet is included tV' .>- <br />in Category I. ::- . ,,,.F"\ , <br />V u ''?;Iv <br /> <br />~~'p'; <br /> <br />~~f <br />~,. <br /> <br />Previous discussions have limited the Category I inclusion to 6,135 AF Iyr that was previously <br />contracted, with the remaining amount being in category 2. This needs to be corrected in the <br />biological opinion. <br /> <br />4 <br />