Laserfiche WebLink
<br />178 <br /> <br />Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. I /Monday, January 4, 1999/Notices <br /> <br />of the two Colorado Ute Tribes. The <br />Colorado Ute Indian reservations were <br />created in 1868, and as such, the Tribes <br />have a priority date for their water rights <br />that precedes the priority dates for most, <br />if not all. non-Indian water rights, <br />Implementation of the Act wl11 allow <br />the development of Tribal senior water <br />rights without adversely impacting n?n- <br />Indian water rights and users, includmg <br />cities and municipalities throughout <br />southwestern Colorado and <br />northwestern New Mexico. <br /> <br />The Proposed Federal Action <br /> <br />The Administration proposal for final <br />implementation of the Colorado Ute <br />Water Rights Settlement was developed <br />after a review of the Settlement Act <br />requirements, the issues surrounding <br />the 1996 formulation of ALP, and a <br />consideration of the alternatives <br />generated during the Romer-Schoettler <br />Process, As a result, the Administration <br />Proposal includes both structural and <br />nonstructural elements designed to <br />achieve the fundamental purpose of <br />securing the Ute Tribes an assured water <br />supply in satisfaction of their water <br />rights as determined by the 1986 <br />Settlement Agreement and the 1988 <br />Settlement Act and by providing for <br />identified municipal and industrial <br />water needs in the Project area. The <br />Administration proposal also brings <br />final resolution to the ALP issue by <br />restricting the project to construction of <br />a defined number of facilities centered <br />around a down-sized storage facility <br />limited to municipal and industrial <br />(M&I) water uses. Other previously <br />contemplated project features would be <br />deauthorized. <br />The Administration proposal includes <br />two components: <br /> <br />Structural Component <br /> <br />This includes an off-stream storage <br />reservoir (approximately 90,000 acre- <br />feet capacity) with only a limited <br />amount of "dead" storage, a pumping <br />plant (up to approximately 240 cubic <br />feet per second of capacity), and a <br />reservoir inlet conduit. all designed to <br />deplete no more than an average of <br />57,100 afper year (afy) from the Animas <br />River. This depletion limit of 57,100 afy <br />is consistent with the Biological <br />Opinion issued by the Service, which <br />limits further water depletion in the <br />entire San Juan River Basin in order to <br />avoid jeopardy to the endangered fish. <br />The proposed reservoir would be <br />located at the Ridges Basin site. <br /> <br />Consumptive use of water from the <br />project wl11 be restricted to M&I uses <br /> <br />only and will be allocated in the <br />following manner: I <br /> <br />Afy de- <br />pletion <br /> <br />Southern Ute Tribe (M&I) ""......... <br />Ute Mountain Ute Tribe (M&I) ...... <br />Navajo Nation (M&I) .........."......... <br />ALP Water Conservancy District <br /> <br />(M&I).......................................... <br />San Juan Water Commission <br />(M&I).......................................... <br /> <br />19,980 <br />19,980 <br />2,340 <br /> <br />2,600 <br /> <br />10,400 <br /> <br />Consistent with the purpose and need <br />statement, a substantial portion of the <br />costs of the reservoir and associated <br />works are anticipated to be non- <br />reimbursable to the federal treasury. <br />Costs of any project benefits accruing to <br />non-Indian parties are expected to be <br />fully absorbed by those parties in <br />accordance with Reclamation law and <br />Administration policy. <br /> <br />Nonstructural Component <br /> <br />Under the allocation shown above, <br />the Tribes are still approximately 13,000 <br />af short of the total quantity of depletion <br />recognized in the settlement agreement. <br />The proposed action therefore includes <br />a nonstructural element which would <br />establish and utilize a water acquisition <br />fund which the Tribes could use one <br />time to acquire water rights on a willing <br />buyer/wl11ing seller basis. The fund <br />would be sufficient to acquire rights to <br />the use of sufficient quantities of water <br />allowing the Tribes about 13,000 afy of <br />depletion in addition to the depletions <br />stated above. Preliminary cost estimates <br />indicate that a fund of approximately <br />$40,000,000 would be required to <br />purchase the additional rights. <br />However, to provide flexibility in the <br />use of the fund, authorization would <br />allow some or all of the funds to be <br />redirected for on-farm development, <br />water delivery infrastructure, and other <br />economic development activities.2 <br /> <br />Several features of the proposed <br />action, particularly the reservoir <br />location, pumping plant, and inlet <br />works have been the subject of previous <br />analysis by Reclamation as described in <br />the Background section. Details <br />concerning these items and changes <br />from the previous ALP configuration <br />can be obtained by contacting <br />Reclamation's Western Colorado Area <br />Office, Southern Division, in Durango, <br /> <br />I The balance of the available depletions is lost <br />to evaporation making total depletions of 57,100 <br />afy. <br />:2 At the request of the Ute Tribes, this provision <br />represents a change from the Administration <br />proposal released on August 11, which limited <br />redirection of funds to only 50% of the total amount <br />provided. <br /> <br />Colorado at the address and telephone <br />number shown above. <br /> <br />Proposed Scope of Analysis <br /> <br />The Administration Proposal is <br />related to but represents a refinement in <br />the configuration of ALP. Accordingly, <br />Reclamation intends to fulfill the <br />requirements of NEP A through <br />development of a DSEIS which is <br />supplementalto the 1996 FSFES for <br />ALP. This approach will allow for full <br />assessment of the new or changed <br />features which are part of the <br />Administration proposal but make use, <br />to the extent appropriate, of the prior <br />environmental analysis for ALP. Given <br />this approach, the following discussion <br />represents Reclamation' s current view <br />of the range of alternatives and the type <br />of analysis which is appropriate for the <br />Administration Proposal. <br />I. Range of Alternatives-In addition <br />to the above-described proposed action <br />(1.e, the Administration Proposal), <br />Reclamation intends to evaluate the <br />following alternatives as part of its <br />NEP A analysis. <br />a. Administration Proposal with <br />Recreation Element Added-At the <br />request of the state of Colorado, <br />Reclamation will evaluate adding <br />recreation as a feature of the reservoir. <br />This feature would necessitate <br />consideration of a conservation pool of <br />approximately 30,000 af thereby <br />increasing the overall reservoir size to <br />approximately 120,000 af. <br />b. Animas-La Plata Reconciliation <br />Plan- This alternative represents the <br />structural alternative developed during <br />the Romer-Schoettler process. It was <br />also the basis for legislation which was <br />introduced during the 105th Congress <br />(S. 1771 and H.R. 3478). The proposal <br />provides water for both M&I and <br />irrigation uses. It also contains project <br />features similar to the Administration <br />Proposal although the reservoir would <br />be sized to a 260,000 af capacity to <br />allow for future M&I and irrigation <br />storage needs. No deauthorization of <br />project features is included in this <br />proposal. <br />c. Animas River Citizens' Coalition <br />Conceptual Alternative-This <br />alternative represents the nonstructural <br />proposal developed during the Romer- <br />Schoettler process. It proposes the <br />purchase of irrigated lands and other <br />associated water rights near the Ute <br />reservations. and would use or purchase <br />water from existing projects or <br />expanded projects/delivery systems for <br />the purpose of providing water in <br />satisfaction of the Ute Tribes' water <br />rights claims. <br />d. 1996 Final Supplement to the Final <br />Environmental Statement (FSFES) <br />