Laserfiche WebLink
<br />y"" <br />;.1,.,," <br />...; . <br />'.- <br /> <br />3463 <br /> <br />Maryanne C. Bach <br />Brian Person <br />October 6, 2000 <br />Page 7 <br /> <br />through utilization of available snowpack and runoff foreeast data, 'Dore <br />sophisticated operating scenanos are possible and will achieve similar results, <br /> <br />Helton & Williamsen eonclude that Adams Tunnel diversions from the <br />Western Slope eould be reduced by an average of over 13,600 aere feet per year <br />through utilization of the East Slope storage decrees, More importantly, an average <br />of 18,000 aere feet of peak flow enhancement flow is possible in the PBO target <br />years (12,900 cfs to 26,600 cfs), [fthe non-charge program was elimmated. the <br />Adams Tunnel diversions eould be reduced by an average of up to 50,000 acre feet <br />per year, with a corresponding increase in peak flows in the target years of over <br />70,000 acre feet, This beneiieial result can be achieved without any adverse affect <br />on CBT Projeet contraet Water supplies, Beeause this method of operation is <br />required by the CBT Projeet's authorizing legislation, Senate Document 80. and <br />Reclamation's obligations to assist in the reeovery of the endangered fish species. it <br />is incumbent on Reclamation to implement it as soon as possible, <br /> <br />ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OBUGA nONS <br /> <br />All of these unauthorized diversions have a real impaet on the Colorado River <br />fish listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"). The River <br />Distriet's engineering consultant has estimated the impact of the non-charge progra::1 <br />and the failure to utilize the East Slope water rights as was contemplated in Senate <br />Document 80, and the amounts are substantial. There is real and significant <br />detrimental impaet to flows in the 15 Mile Reach, and downstream critical habitat <br />below the 15 Mile Reaeh, during the spring runoff period. Operation of CBT in this <br />manner not only breaehes Senare Document 80 as diseussed above, but is also <br />inconsistent with Reclamation's responsibility to eonduet its operations in a manner <br />that furthers the purposes of the ESA, Sections 7 and 9 of the ESA prohibit <br />Reclamation from allowing exeessive or wasteful exports of water from the Upper <br />Colorado River Basin whieh would harm or jeopardize the listed fish or adversely <br />modify or destroy designated critical habitat <br /> <br />Reclamation Is clearly the owner of the CBT Projeet t'acilities pursuant to <br />Anicles 8 and 37 of the ,epaymont contract for the Project, As acknowledged by <br />Roelamation in the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow litigation, ReclamatIon's ESA <br />obligations as holder of title to project facilities is much broader than if the facilities <br />were owned by others, even extending to tho Imposition of bypass requiremonts t'or <br />