Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Item 5. <br /> <br />Colorado's Interests - Involvement by the State of Colorado is needed to protect <br />their interests in the management of water and associated resources of the. <br />Colorado River basin. <br /> <br />Refer to: Montrose meetings; Arapahoe County; the City of Colorado Springs; CRWCD; <br />CWCB; CREDA; the NPCA; the Non-Federal Parties to the 1975 Exchange Agreement. (15 <br />. comments) <br /> <br />Montrose meeting participants questioned: "How is (the) Colorado Water Conservation Board <br />. involved -- need their approval of contract?" Page 19 of the Public Information Packet mentions <br />that while the CWCB has decided to participate in contract negotiations, it has not decided if <br />they will be signatory to the contract. Arapahoe County stated: <br /> <br />"It is CWCB's statutory duty to protect and develop the water of the State for the benefit <br />of the present and future inhabitants of the State. Further, it is CWCB's duty to <br />investigate and assist in formulating a response to the plans of the Federal government <br />which affect or might affect the development of the water resources of this State. " <br /> <br />The CWCB wrote to reiterate their intention to continue to work with the Federal agencies <br />involved to address and resolve the issues of concern to them as listed on page 19 of the <br />Information Packet; this list was modified to emphasize their interests in quantification of the <br />reserved water right of the Black Canyon and completion of Section 7 consultation on operation <br />of the Aspinall Unit. <br /> <br />As mentioned under Item 21, the State of Colorado has decided to be represented by the <br />Colorado Department of Natural Resources to coordinate participation by the CWCB and other <br />affected State agencies. <br /> <br />The Non-Federal Parties to the 1975 Exchange Agreement also wrote to request that they <br />(CRWCD, UGRWCD and UVWUA) be included as parties to the contract to represent interests <br />of Gunnison Basin water users. <br /> <br />Montrose meeting participants questioned how a "variable flow contract" could be enforced, and <br />if the CWCB is needed to approve the contract. Arapahoe County commented that the CWCB <br />should not be a party to a contract in which BOR makes water available based upon only <br />incidental uses of the Aspinall Unit, and in which flow rates are too vague to determine effects <br />on Colorado's compact apportionment. Senator Brown echoed concerns voiced by Arapahoe <br />County that any action not impair Colorado's ability to use its Compact entitlement. The NPCA <br />suggested that the "Colorado Water Conservation Board, and other State agencies, also have <br />obligations to protect the public interest and environmental values...", and suggested that the <br />CWCB "should oppose applications for substantial new diversions or depletions above the <br />Monument. "The NPCA also asked: "Will the Bureau of Reclamation sign its Aspinall Unit <br />water supply over to the Colorado Water Conservation Board to help fulfill Colorado's <br />remaining Compact allocation?" <br /> <br />16 <br /> <br />J <br />