WSP00769 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. C"l'r,~ S rJ;l (~i1!~:"J .-:..: .....". ~.. Gunnison River Contract Scopin2 - SORTED Comments these uses are incidental uses except for regulating the flows of the Colorado River. However. BUREC has never been required to make releases from the Aspinall Unit for that purpose. The Aspinall Unit has never been utilized for satisfying a Compact Call from the Lower Basin Slates. 7a. ARAPAHOE; p4,'4. 5. Forecast Method of Determinin. Flows- The proposed Contract basically requires BUREC to operate the Aspinall Unit as a "flow through" facility except for 300.000 acre feet. This is in derogation of the Colorado River Storage Project Act. Paragraph 5 proposes to determine the amount of flows to be delivered to the Monument based upon target storage levels in the Aspinall Unit. There is no provision that water must be stored for Compact purposes or any other purpose except a minimum pool of 300,000 acre feet. 7a. ARAPAHOE; p5,'1. This method of determining flows for the Monument virtually guarantees delivery of tbat water to the Lower Basin States every year without any determination as to whether the Lower Basin Slates are entitled to that water. It prevents any possibility of, further depletions in the Gunnison River Basin, and does not attempt to address the primary purposes for which the Aspinall Unit was constructed. 7a. MONTECON; p2,'1. I.e. How will these power revenues losses be made up? Are they a violation of the Aspinall "Economic Justification Report"? Will other users of Aspinall (eg. recreational users or future purchasers of stored water) be forced to pay more? 7a. ROBINSON; pl.'6. A. 3. The initial authorillltion of the Curecanti project in 1956 by the United Slates Congress was subject to certification by the Secretary of Interior that the benefits would exceed the cost. This was done through an Economic Justification Report. This report slated approximately 95 % of the construction costs, with interest, would be paid to the federal treasury through tbe sale of power. Is this proposed contract a potential violation of the authorization documents of the Curecanti Unit, Colorado River Storage Project? I . , I '.'A-:: 0" ~~\~~~~;;;~} 7a. ROBINSON; pl,'6. A. 3. The initial authorillltion of the Curecanti project in 1956 by the United Slates Congress was subject to certification by the Secretary of Interior that the benefits would exceed the cost. This was done through an Economic Justification Report. This report stated approximately 95% of the construction costs, with interest, would be paid to the federal treasury through the sale of power. Is this proposed contract a potential violation of the authorization documents of the Curecanti Unit, Colorado River Storage Project? 7b. 5. 04. Who owns 300 cfs donated right? Will it go to National Park Service? --Would like to see it guaranteed through canyon to Grand Junction. 7b. 5. 37. Concerned tbat Colorado water law may conflict with contract. -May need to amend, change state water law to achieve contract goals 7b. ARAPAHOE; p3,'1. Any contract for flows in the Monument should recognize that such flows are associated witb other uses of the Aspinall Unit, and are constrained by those uses. For instance, BUREC could time its hydropower releases to benefit the Monument. However, hydropower releases are constrained by 43 U .S.c. ~ 620f which provides that "subject to the provisions of the Colorado River Compact, neither the empounding nor the use of water for the generation of power and energy at the plants of the Colorado River Storage Project shall preclude or impair the appropriation of water for domestic or agricultural purposes pursuant to applicable State law. n ... 20