Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Item 3. <br /> <br />Black Canyon and Curecanti Purposes and Resources - The NPS should defme <br />, its purposes, need, and authority for involvement in the contract, especially with <br />respect to protecting Black Canyon and Curecanti purposes and resources, and in <br />quantification of the Black Canyon's Federal reserved water right. <br /> <br />Refer to: Gunnison, Montrose, and Delta meetings; Arapahoe County; Congressman Campbell; <br />the City of Colorado Springs; CRWCD; CWCB; the NPCA; Mr. Jorgenson; the Montrose <br />Economic Development Council; Montrose Partners; Non-Federal Parties to the 1975 Exchange <br />Agreement; Mr. Robinson; the Sierra Club; UGRWCD. (46 comments) <br /> <br />Many comments recognized the need, and authority of the NPS to enter into a water delivery <br />contract, especially to resolve issues related to its 1933 Federal reserved right. The Colorado <br />Department of Natural Resources noted that this may require the NPS to address conflicting <br />needs between the Black Canyon and Curecanti. <br /> <br />The NPCA and the Sierra Club noted that the purposes of NPS involvement must correspond <br />to purposes of the Antiquities Act, the 1933 Proclamation Act establishing the Black Canyon, <br />and the "fundamental purposes" stated in the National Park System Organic Act. Montrose <br />Partners suggested that the Organic Act applies to administration of national parks; national <br />monuments are administered under the Antiquities Act and establishing proclamations. They <br />thought it inappropriate for the NPS to establish purposes for the reserved right under the <br />Organic Act. <br /> <br />The Montrose Economic Development Council was concerned that the NPS "appears to have <br />most if not all the say in how the water under the proposed contract would be released," and <br />questioned "Shouldn't releases be controlled by an entity with a broader perspective than the <br />National Park Service, both environmental and otherwise?" <br /> <br />The UGRWCD expressed the need for clear defInition of the environment that the NPS is <br />striving to create or protect: Pre-Gunnison Tunnel, pre-Aspinall, or post-Aspinall, and <br />commented that the historic canyon conditions need to be fully described. The NPCA, the <br />Sierra Club, and Montrose Partners commented on the need for the analysis to thoroughly and <br />correctly enumerate the resource values and Congressional mandates for the 1933 Black Canyon <br />reservation and the 1976 wilderness designation in the Black Canyon. <br /> <br />While mailycoriimented that the contract shoUld be a vehicle to resolve Federal reserved water <br />right issues, the Sierra Club commented that it should not obviate the need for the NPS to pursue <br />the right(s) for the various land designations in the Black Canyon. The Colorado Department <br />of Natural Resources, CRWCD, UGRWCD and Gunnison meeting participants were concerned <br />that the NPS should state the needs of the Black Canyon with specificity ... in terms of the <br />decreed purposes of the reserved right, criteria for meeting the decreed purposes, and an <br />operating scenario or recommended hydrology. The NPCA and the Sierra Club added to the <br />list of values of the Black Canyon resources which the NPS should protect, and Gunnison <br />meeting participants plus Mr. Jorgenson, CRWCD, and Non-Federal Parties to the 1975 <br /> <br />14 <br />