WSP05363 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

slope through the West Slope storage facilities, was executed on October 3. 1973. This contract also provides lor an accounhng system that specifies the amount of Windy Gap water introduCed into and delivered from the C-BT Project system at anyone lime. Provision was made fOf temporary storage of Windy Gap water whenever space is available; for charging seepage and evaporation losses as they occur against Subdistnct water in the system; and for payment of a proportionate share of actual costs and other charges Involved in NCWCD and USBR operation of the C.BT Project. In accordance with the terms of the carnage contract. the Subdistrict agreed that It would file with the United States an enVIronmental assessment report to be used in connection with the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This was completed and submItted to the US8R In February 1977. Until thiS statement had been processed In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). no ProJect water could be transported through the C-BT system Litigation - FoUowmg execution of the carriage contract. a SUIt was filed in District Court by the Colorado River Water Conservallon District (CRWCD). a Western Slope water interest. This organization sought to have the carriage contract declared void fOf failure to comply WIth NEPA and the AdmmlstratlVe Procedure Act. At the end of three years ollitlgallon. on July 18. 1977. the Tenth Circuit Court upheld the legality of the contract between the United States, the Subdistrict. and the NCWCD. "V _ --..... ,~_. To supporr "VI/dllle and recreation below tfJe Wmdy Gap dam ails bypaS5 structure conMually releases 90 cubic-feet per second Of warer Water Rights One 01 the primary charges to the Municipal Subdistrict. following Its formatIOn, was the acquisition of the conditional decree lor the diverSion of waler from the Colorado River below Its confluence With the Fraser River. On ApnJ 3. 1972, Michael D. White. Master Referee for the court. took evidence on cfalms for waler fights for the ProJect. Two years later, on Apnl 8. 1974. Whlte completed his report and flJed It With the District Court in Glenwood Spnngs recommending that the conditional decrees for the PrOject be allowed as requested. JUdge George E. Lohr. newly- appomted Water Judge fOf the District Court. granted the condillOnal decrees on the Windy Gap water rights on February 23. 1978 The CRWCD Immediately flIed an appeal 10 the Stale Supreme Court after Judge Lohr denied a motIOn to grant a new tflal and declined to amend the decree grantlOg the waler fight. On September 14. 1979. the Colorado Supreme Court referred Ihe case back to the District Court lor further definition ollhe plan proposed by the SUbdistrict to protect the Western Slope from any adverse Impacts which might be caused by the Project. The Conservancy Act, under which the Dlstflct and the SubdIstrict were created. states that a Water Conser. vancy District seeking Colorado River water for Front Range diversions must demonstrate that the prOjects will be desrgned and constructed so that the present and prospectIVe uses of water In the natural basins of the Colorado River will not be Impaired, ThiS Issue was resolved through provisions negotiated In the Windy Gap Settlement Agreement m which the Subdistrict agreed to prOVide several mitigatory measures in compliance With the Conservancy Act. Grantmg of an absolute decree for the Project will occur when 600cfs has been pumped lor beneficial use. 7