Laserfiche WebLink
<br />M1700 <br /> <br />'. <br /> <br />Gunnison River Contract ScoOin2 - SORTED Comments <br /> <br />(Section 5-f-I). The draft contract does not explicitly exclude this possibility, and it sbould. A third <br />problem arises from the potential for AB Lateral to divert water in high water years when the <br />Monument receives the contract maximum of 736,000 acre-feet. Each contract alternative should <br />address this problem and the EIS should analyze tbe consequences of the alternative contract terms. <br /> <br />:~.')0n:;I;: <br />:. <br />-'." <br /> <br />9. GREEN02; pl,'2. On page 6 (of previously submitted comments) (Issue E. Protection of <br />Gunnison Gorge) I noted that Gunnison Gorge is likely to be designated as a wild and scenic river in. <br />the future and that the proposed contract should provide water sufficient to meet the requirements of <br />that designation. I now amend that comment by adding that the water right for the wild and scenic <br />river designation should be dated from October 2, 1979 (the date that Gunnison Gorge segment of the <br />river designated as a study river). This date gives the federal wild and scenic river right priority over <br />A-B Lateral and other water rights recognized or conferred by the State since 1979. <br /> <br />9.. KIEFER; pl,'4. More stable winter flows and higher peak and base'flows in the spring and <br />later summer. Changing the target elevations for Blue Mesa Reservoir to July 31 and December 31. <br /> <br />9. KIEFER; pl,'5. Streamflow sizes should be specific about expected streamflow. patterns including size, <br />number, and season of peak flows each year. <br /> <br />9. NONFED75; p2,'7. 5) It is inappropriate to consult exclusively with CWCB concerning the <br />storage, release, and use of any yield of the Aspinall Unit [, S.c. and 8.a-d.]. By virtue of existing <br />contracts and agreements between the United States alld CRWCD, UGRWCD, and UVWUA, each of <br />those entities bas an interest in Aspinall Unit operations as great as that of the CWCB. These entities <br />should be included in any consultation concerning Aspinall Unit operations. <br /> <br />9. <br /> <br />SIERRA; pl,'4. (ISSUE I, cont) The contract analysis should also address the different <br />prioritization schemes that apply to the contract versus quantifiCation of federal reserved water rights. <br />Clearly, tbe national monument's 1933 priority date is far senior to the Bureau's rights.for the Aspinall <br />Unit, and wilderness area's 1976 priority date would be senior to the proposed AB Lateral diversion. <br />The analysis should explain how the delivery scbedule of the proposed contact compares to a. delivery <br />schedule that would be developed on the basis of the reserved rights. <br /> <br />".0;. <br />:~~:.:} <br />.:.- -.~ <br />,..... <br /> <br />9. WAPA; pl.'5. It is certainly not Western's intent to delay this water service contract process or in <br />. any way circumvent Reclamation's authority to regulate releases from the AspinaUUnit; however, we <br />trust that you understand OU~ concern with needing to ensure that every consideration is given to the <br />importance of patterning releases, and where possible, to providing flexibility to power operations so <br />that we may respo[]d to system emergencies and minimize occasions when generation capacity and/or <br />energy must be purchased at higher costs to meet contract commitments to our customers. <br /> <br />27 <br />