Laserfiche WebLink
<br />4. In addition, SECWCD, CSU and Pueblo believe that provisions within decrees allowing for <br />transmountain diversion held by the three water providers, the Congressionally-approved <br />Operating Principles for the Frying-Arkansas Project, or agreements made by CSU, limit the <br />amount, time, place and manner of water diversions out of west slope water basins. <br />Certainly, all of the transmountain water rights held by the three water providers are subj ect <br />to being curtailed when the water rights are not in priority, <br /> <br />5. The Colorado River Water Conservation District (CRWCD) and the Rio Grande Water <br />Conservancy District have indicated concerns that the proposed Warren Act amendments <br />\\~ll facilitate additional transmountain diversions. The CRWCD has proposed language for <br />inclusion in the Warren Act proposal dated July 8, 1999 that it suggests would address this <br />concern. The three water providers believe that the CRWCD's language is broad and may <br />contain elements that are not appropriate for inclusion in federal legislation, and places <br />additional restrictions on existing transmountain diversions that are already limited by decree <br />and authorization. <br /> <br />6. SECWCD, CSU and Pueblo offer the following conceptual alternative for discussion: <br /> <br />a. Colorado transmountain diverters from the Colorado River basin would not utilize <br />storage space available under Warren Act contracts for purposes of storing water <br />obtained pursuant to new water right decrees for trans basin diversions, absent <br />compliance with appropriate mitigation requirements as established by the state. <br /> <br />b. If Colorado transmountain diverters from the Colorado River basin did file any new <br />water rights applications, the contracts to store new water under amendments to the <br />Warren Act would be subject to review and approval by the Colorado River Water <br />Conservation District and directly affected water conservancy districts. <br /> <br />[The manner in which paragraphs 6 a and b reconcile may necessitate further discussion.] <br /> <br />7. SECWCD, CSU and Pueblo believe our concept to prohibit further transmountain diversions <br />that may be facilitated through Warren Act contracts in Reclarriation facilities can address <br />the concerns of the CRWCD and Rio Grande WCD while allowing us to meet future storage <br />demands with existing facilities. <br /> <br />-2- <br />