Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. Does the alternative have sufficient support to facilitate the entry of a final <br />decree which recognizes the Colorado Ute Tribes' rights to water as <br />identified in the settlement; <br /> <br />. Are the benefits in the alternative likely to be secured which is a prerequisite <br />to the waiver of water rights claims by the Colorado Ute Tribes and the <br />United States becoming effective. <br /> <br />The Department developed the analysis necessary to answer the above questions of the 10 <br />alternatives by looking to the purpose and need factors published in the January 4, 1999 <br />Notice of Intent. The purpose and need factors are: <br /> <br />. Yield. Does the alternative provide enough "wet" water to satisfy the <br />Colorado Ute Tribes' water rights? While the ultimate volume of water <br />might be negotiable, there must be some access to an assured water supply. <br /> <br />. Reliability - [s the water supply contemplated by the alternative reliable? [s <br />the reliability consistent with a water right with an 1363 priority (the date of <br />the Colorado Ute Tribes' reserved right)? <br /> <br />. Location - Is the water supply contemplated by the alternative reasonably <br />available for use by the Colorado Ute Tribes? <br /> <br />. Practicability - Is the development of water technically feasible? Are there <br />impediments which make the alternative impracticable? <br /> <br />Technical and Economic Factors <br /> <br />Technical and economic factors included impacts on Indian trust assets (ITAs), feasibility, <br />development costs, annual operation and maintenance costs, public safety and impacts to ongoing <br />operations. <br /> <br />C. Alternatives Selected for Further Refinement <br /> <br />An analysis of the alternatives based on the above described environmental impacts, purpose and <br />need, and technical and economic factors, determined Alternatives 4 and 6 to warrant further <br />ret"inement. These two alternatives approached the implementation of the 1988 Settlement from <br />significantly different perspectives with Alternative 4 containing both structural and non-structural <br />elements while Alternative 6 contained mostly non-structural elements. <br /> <br />7 <br />