WSP05450 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

;....- UTE MOUNTAIN UTE TRIOE ALTERNATIVES 1,2 and 3. Project waler of the Ule Mountain Ute Tribe would not be acquired fN release from MePhee Dam tor tish and wildlife purposes. There would be no effect on the Tribe's Project M&I and fish and wildlife development waler supply since these are guaranteed. TIle implementation of these allemalives would have a minor effect on the Tribe's Project irrigation water supply. Based on the Project operation study as presented in the DPR, more than 25,400 AF of project water is required to be released from storage to meet the flow criteria during 70% of the study period. Implementation of these alternatives would result in more carryover storage, making more water available for all Project water Users during the next season. Operation under alllhe alternatives would minimize or eliminate Project water shortages which would result under the DPRlFES criteria from an extremely dry year occurring during an extended period of nonnal cr near nonnal precipitation. The Tribe would receive its full allocation of Project water under these conditions. During drought years the Tribe's Project irrigation supply would share in water shortages. Based on the Project operation study as presented in the DPR, downstream releases would have been set at 20 cfs during 8 "dry" years of the 46-year srudy period. During the extended drought of the 1950's, downstream releases would have been set at 20 cfs for three consecutive years. The annual volume of Project water required to be released from storage to meet the 20 cfs flow requirement is approximately 10,600' AF. Even with the condition that the managed pool share equally in Project water shortages with irrigation users, the annual volume of water to be . released would be higher than 10,600 AF under these alternatives during a similar drought period. All irrigation users, including the Tribe, would share the added shortage represented by the difference between 10,600 AF and the amount water released under a managed pool system during drought years. The highest estimate of additional shortages occWTing in any single year as a result of the implementation of these alternatives is 8% higher than the maximum 39% shortage predicted in the Project operations study. This type of shortage' would occur only in successive drought years. The operation of the Project under the original DPRlFES criteria would result in a long-term annual release of 29.300 AF of water for fish and wildlife purposes, in addition to up to 3,900 AF for downstream water rights. The acquisition and release from McPhee Reservoir of 3,900 AF of water to resolve the discrepancy in the original Project operation srudy, and of at least 3,300 AF of additional water as proposed under Alternatives I and 2 would result in a decrease of potential future return flows to the San Juan River basin of at least 1,300 to 3,600 Af annually, depending on the source from which the water is acquired. This decrease in future rerum flows to the San Juan River must be viewed as potential, becaus.e the Project has not been fully developed. Thus, this furure reduction would have little or no adverse impact on present Tribal IT As. The Tribe's reserved water rights would be unaffected by future return flows. ALTERNATIVE 4 (No Action) - The ITAs of the Ute Mountain Ute tribe would not be affected. The Tribe's Project water supply would be available for delivery according to the provisions of the 1977 DPR/FES and Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Agreement. NAVAJO NATION ALTERNATIVES 1,2 and 3 - The water supply of the Navajo Nation would be unaffected by any of these alternatives. Reclamation believes Ihallhe estimated reduction in p!ltential return flows of 1,300-3,600 AF to the San Juan River resulting from the proposed action and alternatives would not adversely affect the Navajo Nalion or its IT As. This volume of waler is considered to be relatively insignificant in comparison 10 the average annualllow of lhe San Juan River of some 1,674,000 AF. However, Ihe Navajo Nation holds that any diversion from the San Juan River would adversely affect its outstanding water rights claims in the San Juan River basin. 36