Laserfiche WebLink
<br />002954 <br /> <br />BALCOMB & GREEN, p.e, <br />ATTORNEYS AT LAW <br /> <br />Randy Seaholm <br />Ray Tenney <br /> <br />July 18, 2003 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />There are several areas of concern that I want to point out for consideration. <br /> <br />First, it was anticipated at the outset of this study that there would be an analysis by <br />Jim Lochhead of the "political and institutional" issues associated with recommendations.., <br />While the draft report and executive summary apparently will based on the ExComm <br />discussion on July 17th, no specific substantive analysis has been offered about such <br />limitations affecting the implementation and utility of the recommended actions. In <br />addition, no plan of action related to the furtherance of the' objectives of CFOPS or <br />guidance to the Management Committee of the Recovery Program on the institutio~al <br />issues has been offered. Unless that analysis is completed and guidance is given to the <br />Recovery Program on ilnplementation, the objectives of CFOPS may not be met, I think' <br />that the issue of decreed and authorized abilities of reservoirs to operate for CFOPS is an <br />important concern. And any assumption that junior refill rights could be decreed or that <br />existing rights could be changed to allow use for CFOPS or for insurance purposes also <br />needs careful evaluation. Without an institutional analysis there will be no reasoned basis <br />for any recommendations and no basis for action by the Recovery Program. <br /> <br />I understand that the CFOPS modeling was performed before the 2012 Agreement <br />was finalized and that the limitations of that agreement were not considered. Howeve'r, <br />the likelihood of Ruedi contributing significantly either to CFOPS or to an "insurance" <br />supply is limited by downstream channel encroachment and somewhat remote because of <br />the likelihood of the majority of the controlling call on the "insured" reservoirs coming from <br />Shoshone. Under both the amended Ruedi Round II contracting Biological Opinion and <br />the PBO, the amount of water available to Fish and Wildlife Service from Ruedi Reservoir <br />is now limited to 20,825 AF annually because the 2012 Agreement has been finalized, and <br />for clarity the report and recommendation should be consistent with the agreed <br />arrangements regarding the amount of Ruedi water available for fish uses. <br /> <br />Ruedi Reservoir users have been very concerned over the past few years that Ruedi <br />is becoming an "institutionalized" source of water not only for fish releases, but also now <br />as a substitute source for Green Mountain Reservoir. Recommendations to change <br />operations and expand Ruedi's role will meet resistance from Ruedi users. This makes the <br />analysis of institutional issues very important because the ability of all reservoirs to <br />participate impacts all other reservoirs, including Ruedi. The contemplated use of Ruedi <br />would seem to require some additional agreement and perhaps even legislative <br />amendments and water court adjudications, <br />