Laserfiche WebLink
<br />authority exists within Colorado River Storage Project Act to make releases solely for <br />those purposes, the Contract should make it clear that those uses are incidental uses to <br />the primary purposes of the Aspinall Unit, and cannot interfere with either the primary <br />purposes of the Aspinall Unit or the right of Colorado to use its Compact <br />apportionments. " <br /> <br />One of the clear primary purposes of the Aspinall Unit (discussed further in Item 10) is to store <br />water for beneficial consumptive use, making it possible for the Upper Basin States to use the <br />apportionments to and among them in the Colorado River Compact and the Upper Colorado <br />River Basin Compact. Arapahoe County was particularly concerned that flows committed by <br />contract would interfere with this purpose by causing the Aspinall Unit to be operated as a "flow <br />through" facility. They noted that such operation would benefit the Lower Basin States--except <br />for the 300,000 acre-feet reserved for Compact purposes as identified in the Preliminary <br />Working Draft for a contract. <br /> <br />CREnA suggested that "control" of the contract extends beyond the CRSP Act and Reclamation <br />laws cited in paragraph 6 of the Preliminary Working Draft for a contract; controlling laws <br />should include the "Law of the River" and Colorado State water law. Questions of operational <br />purposes and consistency with state law included Arapahoe County's comment that providing <br />a "finn yield" to the Black Canyon from Aspinall Unit storage without constraints associated <br />with incidental uses would require a change in Aspinall's decree (and charging the NPS for the <br />use of that water). Arapahoe County and the Non-Federal Parties to the 1975 Exchange <br />Agreement wrote that a "river call" to provide finn flows under the proposed contract could not <br />be placed unless there is a primary purpose for the water. <br /> <br />The Montrose Economic Development Council and Mr. Robinson questioned if the contract is, <br />a violation of the "Economic Justification Report" for the Aspinall Unit. This report was <br />completed by Reclamation in 1957, as required by Congress with passage of the CRSP Act to <br />detennine ifthe benefits of the Aspinall Unit would exceed the costs. Mr. Robinson points out <br />that this report stated approximately 95 percent of the Aspinall Unit's costs, with interest, would <br />be paid through power sales. The Montrose Economic Development Council questioned if <br />revenue losses would be made up by recreational, future purchasers, or other users of Aspinall <br />water. <br /> <br />Concerning compatibility with State water law, Congressman Campbell commented that "Few, <br />if any, really understand or know precisely which water rights holders are truly entitled to the <br />water of the Gunnison River." The City of Colorado Springs and the Non-Federal Parties to <br />the 1975 Exchange Agreement commented on confusion with Paragraphs 5.e. and 9.a. of the <br />Preliminary Working Draft for a contract. Paragraph 5.e. discusses how the volume of water <br />to be released pursuant to the contract interacts with the Black Canyon's reserved right, Aspinall <br />direct flow power rights and storage rights, and CWCB's instream flow rights. Paragraph 9.a. <br />requires the NPS to pursue quantification of the Black Canyon's reserved right, and requires that <br />they not "call" the right if it would injure or interfere with the purposes, operations, or storage <br /> <br />19 <br /> <br />001761 <br />