My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC02244
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
14000-14999
>
WSPC02244
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 11:17:49 AM
Creation date
10/9/2006 3:16:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8210.761.09.C
Description
Colorado River-Federal Agencies-US NPS-Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
3/1/1993
Author
BOR-NPS
Title
Legislation to Make BC a National Park-Scoping Report for the Gunnison River Contract
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
50
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 />Aspinall Unit itself), and asked how much water has been released to satisfy senior rights of the <br />Gunnison Tunnel and Redlands diversions. Delta meeting participants requested we identify how <br />Blue Mesa Reservoir has been managed to benefit users today--for both releases and water held <br />in storage. The NPCA and others were concerned about how or if power generation <br />commitments would affect the contract. Commissioner Corey and Mr. Jorgenson thought that <br />flatwater and river recreational benefits associated with historic management should be <br />maintained, including fisheries developed in Blue Mesa Reservoir and the Gunnison River. <br /> <br />The contract analysis should address and define the various "pools" of water available within <br />Blue Mesa, and relate these amounts to deliveries under the proposed contract. Clarification is <br />needed for commitments for Blue Mesa water to satisfy: Colorado's (and other Upper Basin <br />State's) Compact entitlement; existing contractual commitments; subordination of Aspinall <br />storage rights to existing and future Upper Gunnison developments; releases for satisfaction of <br />downstream senior water rights; water available for sale; and water for endangered fish. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Gunnison and Delta meeting participants, UGRWCD, and CWCB were concerned that <br />contract operation may impact the 1975 Taylor Park Reservoir Operation and Storage <br />Exchange Agreement (1975 Agreement). <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Many questioned the source and validity of the 300,000 acre-feet calculation as the <br />amount of storage in Blue Mesa that is available for beneficial consumptive use (sale) <br />within the State of Colorado, as identified in the preliminary working draft for the <br />contract. Arapahoe County and the City of Colorado Springs suggested that there is no <br />provision restricting the amount to be stored and available for beneficial use to be only <br />300,000 acre-feet. The City of Colorado Springs suggested that this 300,000 acre-feet <br />is available "above" the Aspinall Unit, including for transmountain diversion; Non- <br />Federal Parties to the 1975 Exchange Agreement and Gunnison meeting participants <br />maintained that under the decrees for the Aspinall Unit, any use of water from the <br />Aspinall Unit must be made within the natural basin of the Gunnison River. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Congressman Campbell, Commissioner Corey, Gunnison meeting participants and the <br />Non-Federal Parties to the 1975 Exchange Agreement suggest that a historic commitment <br />and/or objective of operation has been to subordinate 60,000 acre-feet of Blue Mesa <br />storage to protect the Upper Gunnison Basin from "calls" by downstream senior water <br />right holders, including decrees of the Aspinall Unit itself. Many, including the NPCA, <br />'requested more informatIon on -whetiier this 1)0, OOO-acre~feefis part onne 300,000 acre- <br />feet, how this subordination is to be administered, and how it will affect contract <br />alternatives. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />CREDA and the Non-Federal Parties to the 1975 Exchange Agreement requested <br />discussion of Aspinall Unit commitments to satisfy requirements of the Biological <br />Opinions for the Dolores and Dallas Creek Projects. These opinions identify up to <br />148,000 acre-feet of depletions that must be replaced to offset impacts to endangered fish <br />associated with those projects (see Item 6). <br /> <br />12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.