WSPC06214 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ t!/~ . . Page 4 ' Thursday, December 3, 1998 . Gunnison Country Times Black Canyon continue~ from page 2 called for flows that averaged only about 1,260 cfs during)une and more than 1,300 cfs from December through March, More natural winter flows are 460 to 500 cfs, Since the early 19905, the BOR has tried to provide higher spring flows in the range of 3,000 to 3,500 cfs for the mon- ument and recovery of endan- gered fish downstream, The A.spinall Unit is man- aged to serve many objectives whose requirements are o-ften in conflict: hydroelectric power generation, downstream irriga- . tors, recreation, flood and icing control, obligations to down- _ stream states, and recently to provide increased flows needed by the Black Canyon and endangered fish. This has meant that the pattern of water Jloo"s through the canyon has been unnaturally smoothed, Both the canyon and the fish require a natural flow pattern, or natural hydrograph ' high in the spring and low in the win- ter. The monument's water right is senior to those of the Aspinall Unit. Quantification will deter- mine' how much of the monu. ment's natural flow pattern can be achieved under its water right. In addition, the endan- gered. native fish downstream of the canyon also require, not surprisingly, a very similar nat- ural flow pattern or hydrograph to enable recovery from near extinction. Therefore, the mon- ument's water right may serve two objectives. The way in which the Aspinall Unit has been operated for more thim 30 years also !i'uc. cessfully protected upstream water users from downstream .calls" or being shut off by those with senior rights below the unit. The value of this can be M ~1l~ Qp 1.0' . . upward of $1.2 million a year, . Tli.e amount of water required to achieve this valued call pro- tection is far beyond our local capability to build storage , reservoirs and there isn't water to fill ihem. However, in com- parison with other places in and beyond Colorado, irrigators in the Upper Gunnison Basin have absolute water rights that are enormous for the acreage irri- gated: Greater efficiency in use of water could greatly reduce their, needs for call protection. How much water is available each year depends on precipita- tion. The Aspinall Unit's reser- voi~ are not large enough store the total of the many requite- ments which now must be met. Instead ihe operations of the unit balance and combine require.ments for water in terms of quantity and timing, When the water is 'available to Aspinall and the monument also depends on how ":luch is being diverted upstream for irrigation and storage. The monument requires large flows in the spring time when the, Aspinall Unit otherwise would accumulate water in storage and the irrigators flood their fields. The greatest requirement for generating hydroelectric power is during the late sum~ mer and winter months. As indicated earlier, the water right for the monument is senior to those of the Aspinall Unit and to almost half the .upstream irrigation rights.. To compromise this seniority can compromise the protection and maintenance of the monument as an outstanding component of our national heritage. , . There is simply not enough water originating in our basin to meet the existing demands, provide call protection, and cer- tainly none to develop new water projects ~ for either in- basin use or out of basin trans~ mountain diversions. Therefore, what might make sense in quantification? Certainly it would be a. federal, state, and local partnership whose out- lined features look something like this: . -The monument accepts only about 65 percent of its potential right but water is managed. to provide critical high spring flows and to meet the. needs of the endangered fish recovery program. . Establish the subordination of the Aspinall Unit to existing water rights upstream that are junior to it., . . Local water users and the state of Colorado commit to no additional water consumption upstream of the Aspinall Unit, including foregoing transmoun- lain diversion from the Upper Gunnison Basin. . The Bureau of Reclamatio and Department of Energy greatly reduce hydropower generation at the Aspinall Unit during the winter months to keep water available for release . in the spring. . Irrigators and other water users upstream undertake water conservation tei make more efficient use of existing supplies .and to reduce the extent of call protection needed by irrigators. This. can be enabled with cost-share incen~ tive programs such as those sponsored by the Department . of Agriculture and funding from the private market sales and transfers of water rights occurring within the Upper Gunnison Basin. The bottom line is trying to keep what, we all valw with creative watershed planning. Please attend the meeting on Dec, 15 and follow this impor- tant quantification process, For more information and details, please contact members of the POWER Steering Team. Butch Clark is a former Upper Gunnison River Water Canseroan- cy District director and current POWER member, ~~J 1r rP: ",'/ Vl r'~\ I.\~j 1V;~t ~\~