Laserfiche WebLink
<br />affect releases under the contract. According to the Sierra Club, the contract analysis should <br />address different prioritization. schemes that apply to the contract versus quantification of Federal <br />reserved water rights. The analysis should explain how the delivery schedule of the proposed <br />contract compares to a delivery schedule that would be developed on the basis of reserved water <br />rights. . <br /> <br />The NPCA expressed concern about the AB Lateral Hydropower Project being able to contract <br />water from the Blue Mesa water supply and thus bypass the Black Canyon. The contract should <br />exclude this possibility, according to their letter. The NPCA was also concerned that the AB <br />Lateral Project could divert excess water in high flow years when the Black Canyon was able <br />to receive the maximum 736,000 acre-feet discussed in the Preliminary Working Draft for a <br />contract. The analysis and contract should address these concerns. <br /> <br />Other projects need to be considered in the analysis, for example the Redlands Power and <br />Irrigation Project, Dallas Creek Project, Dominquez Project and other existing or proposed <br />projects in the Gunnison River Basin. How would these projects affect releases under the <br />contract, and vice versa'? <br /> <br />The contract and NEPA analysis need to address the proposed Wild River designation of the <br />Gunnison River and any water right that goes along with this designation. As previously <br />mentioned in Item 4, Mr. Greeno wrote that the water right for this designation should be dated <br />October 2, 1979, which would be senior to AB Lateral Hydropower water rights. <br /> <br />One respondent suggested more stable winter flows with higher spring peaks and summer flows. <br />Alternatives should provide specific flow information. <br /> <br />Item 10. <br /> <br />Colorado's Compact Entitlement - Alternatives should provide flexibility for <br />Colorado to develop (and use) its Compact entitlement. <br /> <br />Refer to: Gunnison meetings; Arapahoe County; the City of Colorado Springs; the NPCA; Mr. <br />Miller; the Montrose Economic Development Council, Senator Hank Brown. (10 comments) <br /> <br />As previously mentioned, a primary purpose of the Aspinall Unit is to allow Colorado and the <br />other Upper Basin States to develop and use their entitlement apportioned by interstate <br />agreements, including the 1922 Colorado River Compact and the 1948 Upper Colorado River <br />Basin Compact. Gunnison participants, Arapahoe County, the City of Colorado Springs and Mr. <br />Miller were concerned that contractual commitments to the Black Canyon and/or endangered fish <br />recovery would hinder Colorado's ability to fully utilize its Compact entitlement, and would give <br />the Lower Basin States the legal benefit to the water. Arapahoe County wrote that the Aspinall <br />Unit itself is located such that its water is not used within Colorado, and worried that water <br />released through the contract would take water further from any conceivable statewide use. <br />Senator Brown wrote, "It is important that any action taken by the Department of the Interior <br />I, concerning the operation of the Aspinall Unit does not impair Colorado's ability to use its <br />, Compact entitlement." The Montrose Economic Development Council was concerned that the <br /> <br />21 <br />