Laserfiche WebLink
<br />OO:S~5 <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />Gunnison River Contract SCOPin2 - SORTED Comments <br /> <br /><~~~~j~j~;~; <br /> <br />5. <br /> <br />3. 24. <br />Junction? <br /> <br />a. <br /> <br />Will Colorado Water Conservation Board seek instream flow below Grand <br /> <br />5. 4. 01. Concerned that Colorado Division of Wildlife sbould be more involved, not only <br />represented by State Colorado Water Conservation Board. <br /> <br />5. 4. 16. How can 'variable flow contract" be enforced? This is major concern. How is <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board involved - need their approval of contract? <br /> <br />5. <br /> <br />4. <br /> <br />22. <br /> <br />The needs of the Upper (Gunnison) Basin sbould be considered within the scoping. <br /> <br />5. ARAPAHOE; p5,~3. 6. CWCB Involvement -It is CWCB's statutory duty to protect and develop <br />the waters of the State for the benefit of tbe present and future inhabitants of tbe State. Further, it is <br />CWCB's duty to investigate and assist in formulating a response to the plans of the Federal government <br />whicb affect or migbt affect the development of tbe water resources of this State. CWCB sbould not be <br />a party to an agreement whereby BUREC contracts to make water available based upon only incidental <br />uses of the Aspinall Unit. In addition, tbe flow rates specified in the proposed Contract and the <br />necessity for any given flow regime are too vague in the draft Contract for CWCB to make. any <br />informed decision as to the effect of this Contract on Colorado's apportionment under tbe Colorado <br />Ri ver Compact. <br /> <br />5. <br /> <br />BROWN. It is important that any action taken by tbe Department of Interior concerning the <br />operation of the Aspinall Unit does not impair Colorado's ability to use its compact entitlements. <br /> <br />. ':::~=:'-.;:. <br />.... '..~..;.;;... <br />.:. .~.":'" <br />... <br /> <br />5. <br /> <br />COLO _ SPR; p2.#6. Isn't any participation at this time by the CWCB also premature? Thougb the <br />CWCB bas agreed to accept a donated right in tbe area in question, that rigbt bas not yet beeD <br />converted, through a water court proceeding, to instream flow use. 1bis process faces legal challenges <br />and an uncertain future. Furtber, even if the CWCB rigbt is adjudicated, will the CWCB bonor its past <br />pledge not to "stack' its rigbt on top of any federal reserved rigbt? What role does the CWCB bave in <br />this process unless the amount of the federal reserved right is determined to be less than the CWCB <br />right? Is the CWCB indicating a contrary intention on tbe stacking issue? <br /> <br />5. CWCB; pl,~2. I) <br /> Basin Compacts. <br />5. CWCB; pl,~3. 2) <br /> Colorado. <br /> <br />Protection of Colorado's Compact entitlement under the Colorado River <br /> <br />Protection of water and water rights for beneficial consumptive use in <br /> <br />5. GREENO+; p13,~1. (Issue N. Enforcement of Contract) <br />3) Will the Colorado Water Conservation Board recognize and protect the cootract even if it <br />is not a signor? Is its participation needed to assure tbat downstream rigbts will not be sold <br />for upstream diversion out of tbe Gunnison Basin? <br /> <br />5. GREENO+; p4,~5. In order to protect tbe Monument and Wilderness reserved water rigbts tbe <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board should oppose applications for substantial new diversions Dr <br />depletions above the Monument. The Bureau of Reclamation sbould rescind its approval of the AB <br />Lateral Project because it conflicts with tbese reserved rigbts. <br /> <br />(,),.~;.'~ <br />....,... <br /> <br />13 <br />