FLOOD02168 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Aspinall Unit itself), and asked how much water has been released to satisfy senior rights of the Gunnison Tunnel and Redlands diversions. Delta meeting participants requested we identify how Blue Mesa Reservoir has been managed to benefit users today--for both releases and water held in storage. The NPCA and others were concerned about how or if power generation commitments would affect the contract. Commissioner Corey and Mr. Jorgenson thought that flatwater and river recreational benefits associated with historic management should be maintained, including fisheries developed in Blue Mesa Reservoir and the Gunnison River. The contract analysis should address and defme the various "pools" of water available within Blue Mesa, and relate these amounts to deliveries under the proposed contract. Clarification is needed for commitments for Blue Mesa water to satisfy: Colorado's (and other Upper Basin State's) Compact entitlement; existing contractual commitments; subordination of Aspinall storage rights to existing and future Upper Gunnison developments; releases for satisfaction of downstream senior water rights; water available for sale; and water for endangered fish. . Gunnison and Delta meeting participants, UGRWCD, and CWCB were concerned that contract operation may impact the 1975 Taylor Park Reservoir Operation and Storage Exchange Agreement (1975 Agreement). . Many questioned the source and validity of the 300,000 acre-feet calculation as the amount of storag.e in Blue Mesa that is available for beneficial consumptive use (sale) within the State of Colorado, as identified in the preliminary working draft for the contract. Arapahoe County and the City of Colorado Springs suggested that there is no provision restricting the amount to be stored and available for beneficial use to be only . 300,000 acre-feet. The City of Colorado Springs suggested that this 300,000 acre-feet is available "above" the Aspinall Unit, including for transmountain diversion; Non- Federal Parties to the 1975 Exchange Agreement and Gunnison. meeting participants maintained that under the decrees for the Aspinall Unit, any use of water from the Aspinall Unit must be made within the natural basin of the Gunnison River. i I 'I . Congressman Campbell, Commissioner Corey, Gunnison meeting participants and the Non-Federal Parties to the 1975 Exchange Agreement suggest that a historic commitment and/or objective of operation has been to subordinate 60,000 acre-feet of Blue Mesa storage to protect the Upper Gunnison Basin from "calls" by downstream senior water right holders, including decrees of the Aspinall Unit itself. Many, including the NPCA, . requested more information on whether this 60,000 acre-feet is part of the 300,000 acre- feet, how this subordination is to be administered, and how it will affect contract alternatives. . CREDA and the Non-Federal Parties to the 1975 Exchange Agreement requested discussion of Aspinall Unit commitments to satisfy requirements of the Biological Opinions for the Dolores and Dallas Creek Projects. These opinions identify up to 148,000 acre-feet of depletions that must be replaced to offset impacts to endangered fish associated with those projects (see Item 6). I I I I 12