Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. Of!: S~5 <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />~1t>';;,;J~ <br /> <br />Gunnison River Contract Scooine - SORTED Comments <br /> <br />lb. <br /> <br />2.1. <br /> <br />03. <br /> <br />How much (Blue Mesa water is) for sale? <br /> <br />lb. <br /> <br />2.1. <br /> <br />04. <br /> <br />Legal constraints upon (water) sale? <br /> <br />lb. <br /> <br />2.1. <br /> <br />05. <br /> <br />Who is/could be contractor for this water? <br /> <br />lb. <br /> <br />2.1. <br /> <br />07. <br /> <br />Is water for sale "available for other purposes' (meet calls, etc.)? <br /> <br />lb. 2.3. 07. Agreements: Contract should not affect existing agreements (i.e., 1975 Taylor <br />Park/Blue Mesa Reservoirs Excbange Agreement). <br /> <br />lb. 3. 12. Will proposed contract or release pattern affect "1975 Exchange Agreement" (between <br />Taylor Park/Blue Mesa Reservoirs) or other exchange agreements, ego Ridgway Reservoir (Dallas <br />Creek Project) and Aspinall Unit. <br /> <br />lb. ARAPAHOE; p4,'4. 5. Forecast Method of Determinine Flows- The proposed Contract basically <br />requires BUREC to operate the Aspinall Unit as a "flow through" facility except for 300,000 acre feet. <br />This is in derogation of the Colorado River Storage Project Act. Paragraph 5 proposes to determine <br />the amount of flows to be delivered to the Monument based upon target storage levels in the Aspinall <br />Unit. There is no provision that water must be stored for Compact purposes or any other purpose <br />except a minimum pool of 300,000 acre feet. <br /> <br />lb. <br /> <br />COLO _ SPR; p2.117. The Contract identifies approximately 300,000 acre feet as available for <br />beneficial consumptive use (paragraph S.c.). Wouldn't this water be available for use "above" the <br />Aspinall Unit, including use for transmountain diversion purposes? If not, please explain. <br /> <br />~:. ...;...~~::', <br /> <br />.~..; . . <br /> <br />.::.;.:"::..... <br /> <br />lb. CREDA; p4,'3. You then discuss two prior biological opinions on Dolores and Dallas C:reek. How <br />will these biological opinions affect the array of alternatives and what provisions of them are relevant <br />specifically to the Aspinall Unit? What "other Reclamation facilities" that you refer to could possibly <br />be impacted? <br /> <br />lb. CREDA; p5,'3. What "storage water" would be set aside for other purposes (page 9 of Information <br />Packet)? What purposes? <br /> <br />lb. CWCB; p2,'11. In order to develop the protections sought a number of questions, such as <br />administration of the 60,000 A.F. subordination, Taylor Park exchange and basin water rights <br />administration will need to be answered... <br /> <br />lb. GREENO+; pll,'3. (Issue M. Water Supply, cont.) <br />2) Asoinall Unit Water Suoolv (300,000 acre-feet developed by the Bureau of Reclamation) <br />a) What is the status of the 60,000 acre-fool Blue Mesa Subordination and how will it affect <br />the contract? <br />b) Will the Bureau of Reclamation allow diversions of all or part of the 300,000 acre-foot <br />Aspinall Unit Water Supply above the National Monument? <br />c) Would AB Lateral Project developers or others be allowed to contract for all or part of the <br />300,000 acre-foot Aspinall Unit Water Supply for diversion through the Gunnison Tunnel? <br />d) . If none of the 300,000 acre-foot Aspinall Unit Water Supply were not available to the Park <br />Service under the proposed contract, bow often would the Monument receive more tban the <br />187,500 acre-foot minimum annual supply provided for in the January 1992 draft contract? <br /> <br />,'..; . <br /> <br />"':""". <br />. <br /> <br />.~.~, <br /> <br />2 <br />