Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. '. ..",j' <br />'~<.::: \f <br />. ,. <br />",~ <br />r <br /> <br />3455 <br /> <br />Mr. Hal D, Simpson, Colorado State Engineer <br />October 6, 2000 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />, <br />, <br /> <br />36) to Water Division I (District 7) in amounts that far exeeed the identified <br />augmentation plan requirements or direet flow contract deliveries. with no <br />aceounting for the exeess water. <br /> <br />A.s you know, as the result of the need to address endangered speeies <br />recovery requirements in the Colorado R.iver Basin, West Slope Water users are <br />being required to tighten their opera[ions ana eontribure diverrible supplies to <br />recovery efforts. There are increasing pressures on Colorado to deliver water co <br />downstream states for compact and environmental purposes, and the State of <br />Colorado is involved in establishing "baseline" conditions for recovery efforts in the <br />Platte R.iver basin, Further, the reeently eompleted MWSI report and other smdies <br />identify the reuse of transmountain effiuent (through exchanges, non-potable reuse <br />projects, indirect and direct potable reuse projects, ete.) as a major souree of <br />munieipal water for Front Range growth, Therefore, a complete and aceurate <br />aceounting of transmountain diversions, deliveries of TMD water t"or eonsumptive <br />use only, and reuse of transmountain.generated effluent and remm flows is essential. <br /> <br />In summary, the River District believes ~hat the State Engineer and Division <br />Engineers have the clear responsibility (eoditied in C.R,S, 9937-80-\02, -104, and- <br />105; '3 37-81-102; '3 37-83-103; 9 37-84-108; 937-87-103; '3937-92-501 and -502) <br />to closely track and fully account for the diversion and benefieial eonsumptive use of <br />transmounrain water in the importing basin, and to prevent the delivery of Colorado <br />River water to the East Slope for undecreed purposes, for non-consumptlve uses, or <br />to states not par.y co the Colorado River Compaet such as Nebraska. <br /> <br />The River Disrrict has expressed its very serious eoncerns' about the operation <br />of the CBT Project, and doeumented them in writing, on several occasions in the <br />past. I wrote to the NCWCD over a year ago deseribing in detail the River District's <br />primary areas of objeetion, The River District has also pointed out on numerous <br />oecasions to the Management Committee of the Coordinated Facilities Operations <br />Study, Phase 2 (CFOPS), which includes Reclamation representatives, that re- <br />operation of the CBT Projeet ean meet the goals of the CFOPS process without <br />impacting water deliveries, No action has been taken to address the points raised <br />In order t'or the River District to fulfill its statutory mandate to preserve for weSlern <br />Colorado the use and development of the water resources of the Colorado River, <br />stranger measures are now required, <br />