WSP02052 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ouuZ08 . . RECEIVED AUG 2 3 1999 Colorado Wa,er Conservation Board CONCEPT PAPER Offered by the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Colorado Springs Utilities and Board of Water Works of Pueblo; responding to July 8,1999 CRWCD-proposed Warren Act language DRAFT-~August 18, 1999--DRAFT Purpose: To cooperate and work together with all Colorado water entities that have any interest in how or whether the Warren Act is amended. I, Over the last year, water user entities throughout the West, under the coordination of the Family Farm Alliance, have worked on draft legislation designed to amend the Warren Act. The Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District (SECWCD), Colorado Springs Utilities (CSU) and the Board of Water Works of Pueblo (pueblo) support the efforts of the Family Farm Alliance's work group to amend the Warren Act. 2. SECWCD, CSU and Pueblo believe that the Warren Act should be amended to (I) assure the revenue from the sale of surplus water and storage under Warren Act contracts is applied to project construction repayment, operation and maintenance costs, instead of going to the general Reclamation fund; (2) allow for the storage and transportation of non-project municipal and industrial water in excess capacity, where project sponsors agree that this use will not be detrimental to the primary project purposes; (3) allow project beneficiaries reasonable participation in the Warren Act contracting process; and (4) make the acreage limitation in the Warren Act consistent with those in the Reclamation Reform Act. In the opinion of the Bureau of Reclamation, the Warren Act does not provide authority to use facilities for non-Project, nonirrigation purposes. Fryingpan-Arkansas Project facilities under Project authorization are currently used to store non-Project M&I water under temporary "if and when" accounts. SECWCD, CSU and Pueblo need to store non-Project water on a flnTI, long-term contractual basis in excess storage capacity in the Fry-Ark Project. It is also possible that these entities may want to store project water in non-project space in order to maximize efficiency of operations with minimal environmental or social impacts. The proposed legislation would help the three water providers to address their long-term storage needs by eliminating current restrictions under the Warren Act. 3. The three water providers do not intend to use the flexibility contained in the proposed Warren Act amendments to execute contracts for the storage of water obtained through new water rights filings that would provide additional transmountain water from the west slope of Colorado. It is also not the intention ofSECWCD, CSU or Pueblo to use the proposed Warren Act amendments to expand transmountain water diversions through the Fryingpan- Arkansas Project beyond those that are currently authorized by federal reclamation law and existing Colorado water court decrees.