WSP02096 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

('\\HlHl .1 Southeastern District-Report Policy Issues and Activities USBR Regional Director-Maryanne Bach-Follow-up-I sent Maryanne Bach a letter thanking her for her time at our May 19th and 20th meetings. I also asked her to personally get involved in the resolution of the Pueblo pipeline project and the Ruedi replacement pool use for the Recovery Program. While I was in Washington, D.C. I met with Ms. Bach to discuss our concerns regarding O&M costs. That too was a helpful meeting. Endangered Fish- The US Fish and Wildlife Service will brief water users on their proposed changes to the preliminary draft Programmatic Biological Opinion (PBO) for the Recovery Program in mid July. They then hope to issue the draft PBO by mid August. In the meantime I am focusing my attention on the Colorado River Water Conservation District's proposal to expand the Coordinated Facilities Operations Study (CFOS) to include the study of transmountain diversion projects. Originally, the scope of the study was to include the evaluation of all Division 5 water projects that could be operated in such a way as to increase flow augmentation in the 15-mile reach, this included the west slope portion of the transmountain diversion projects. The River District is now suggesting that the study should look at the operational efficiency of east slope operations (see the attached May 14th letter which lists our concerns for this proposal). I meet with east slope water users June 10" to discuss this matter. Eric Wilkinson (see attached draft letter from Eric dated June 7, 1999), representing east slope water users on the Executive Committee of the CFOS, will share our concerns with the Executive Committee. He will advocate for a clear set of study objectives and recognition/agreement that any proposed operations plans must not impact the yield of the projects or increase the cost of operating the projects. I will try to attend the next Executive Committee meeting. Update: Please note the attached correspondence from Eric Wilkinson to members of the CFOS Executive Committee (June 8'" letter) and to the east slope water users (June 8'" memo). I've also attached a letter from the Colorado River Water Conservation District asserting their views on the need to study the Fry-Ark Project. The River District also claims that only .project customers" should be held hannless from any proposed operational changes that might come out of the CFOS. They attempt to make the argument that "beneficiaries" should not be held hannless. For the District the issue is simple-any new operational schemes that may come out of the CFOS must not impact the yield of the Project. We will strongly advocate this position. The contractor for this study (Leo Eisel) has already begun drafting concepts for possible re-operation of transmountain facilities, including a "Ruedi- pump back exchange" that would propose to forgo diversions of Hunter Creek on the Project's south-side collection system in exchange for off-peak diversions of stored water in Ruedi. That concept has its problems and the contractor has not yet discussed the idea with the Southeastern District. 3