My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD02636
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
BOARD02636
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:17:40 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 7:18:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
11/20/2000
Description
CF Section - New Loans - Dolores Water Conservancy District - WETPACK
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />'.' <br /> <br />- . <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />shortage today-and leave plenty of water in the reservoir to satisfy the historic users <br />along with new diversions. This is the basis for a "win-win" solution we believe that the <br />Hydrosphere report reveals is possible. <br /> <br />Fish Pool Solutions. There are three different ways to boost the fish pool: (1) reallocate <br />unused Project water, (2) acquire non-Project water or (3) re-operate the reservoir (as the <br />local Division of Wildlife biologist has suggested) to make the necessary releases for the <br />fishery, with the allocated fishery pool having to pay back any debts to other users that <br />occur if the releases result in shortages (however, given the amounts of excess water in <br />the system, there are unlikely to be such debts). Solution (3) would not require any <br />money to achieve, whereas the first two solutions might require funds. Trout Unlimited <br />believes that, if the water were available permanently, at reasonable rates, it would be <br />possible to raise the money to purchase this water. The Bureau has over $300,000 in <br />escrow for this purpose. Other federal agencies with an interest in the Dolores (e.g., the <br />Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management) may also be willing to contribute with <br />their own or Land & Water Conservation Fund moneys. A properly crafted GOCO grant, <br />with unified local support, could also find success. If the solution would bring more <br />certainty to the rafting community, we believe that other sources of funds would also be <br />available. If the Board approves the revised Policy # 14 that its staff is presenting at this <br />meeting, Construction Fund Grants could also be available for the fishery. Since none of <br />these solutions would deprive other, traditional water users of their water, any of these <br />options would constitute a "win-win" scenario by providing water for the fishery without <br />affecting the District's ability to make water available to other users for other Project <br />purposes. <br /> <br />Concerns with WETP ACK grant aoolication. <br /> <br />Trout Unlimited has the following concerns with the proposal now before the Board: <br /> <br />· Water Law. The water the District would use this loan to buy from MVIC appears to <br />be water salvaged as a result of the Bureau's salinity control measures. Previously <br />used for irrigation in the Montezuma Valley, it would now be applied for use in Dove <br />Creek. Under Colorado water law, salvaged water returns to the stream for <br />appropriation in priority; it is not the property of the former user, to sell or otherwise <br />dispose or change. TV therefore does not believe that this water is actually legally <br />available for sale to the District under Colorado law. (In the 1990s, TV supported <br />legislation that would have changed Colorado law to allow the sale of salvaged water, <br />mostly because we believe that this change would create much needed incentives for <br />water conservation; none of these bills passed.) <br />· Salinitv. As compared to leaving the salvaged water in stream, this project will <br />increase salinity in the Colorado River Basin. It defeats the purpose of salinity <br />control to invest in on-farm efficiencies to reduce runoff and seepage only to apply <br />the water saved to new irrigation. Even if the new lands to be irrigated will produce <br />less salinity than the lands where the water was originally used, reuse of any of this <br />water in a manner that adds to the salinity load thwarts the goal of salinity control. <br /> <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.