Laserfiche WebLink
<br />002955 <br /> <br />HALCOMB & GREEN, P.C. <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, n2.,~e~~~)?s!aU!1~li_~~~is h~.!;~~,..~t!~~9 J!J;mm~<;,1;l <br />!!!n-l!itt!.qns affectin~ the i~ementa~.2p.~and utili~fl~_~~,c.?~~~~~.d <:S~~' In <br />addition, no Ian of acfiori related to the further f tl:1~ obJ.ectives of CFOPS or <br />-~~,. _ ~__ m\~~ <br />guidance to the anagement Committee of the RecoV!i!~ m on the institutipnal <br />~sue!; has b~rl orrerecr.-~~;~~~~d guidance, ~~ven to ':t!J$ \ " <br />~i'frQ~l~ent~~o~(,.!~t ~~Le.&!i.Y~~LQJ;.,~.~r.;?.t,~n,;eJ; I think <br />that the issue of decreed and aUtliorized 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 u~l,~~~ thatth~~~,,~~~BW~~~~e201~.i~~!~t <br />was fiI1;nzed anclt~~mltations of that agreement were not'cO:ns~. However, <br />ti1e'likelih'ob'il~(R~r~orrtributiIl!ni'gHrE.~afltryeirher'to"CFOPs";;rt~^ ;n"'''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 1r <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 />