WSP06202 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

J~.~~~ ~g SUMMARY Utah's apportionment of COlorado River Basin waters because the Reservation is within Utah. This would be consistent with the precedent established by the United States Supreme Court in Arizona v, California. 373 U,S, 546. 83 Sup, Ct. 1468 (1963). Thus. while the water probably would not be chargeable to Colorado, it does not necessarily follow that Colorado would be free to take action within Its boundaries that would prevent the Tribe from satisfying any Winters Doctrine entitlements. It is doubtful that the courts would permit use of water in Colorado that would nullify legitimate Winters Doctrine entitlements of Indian tribes located in Utah. Of course, the precise issue has not been considered by the courts and, until or unless it is, or the matter is otherwise resolved, uncertainty regarding it will continue, As competition for use of water from the White River increases and if a dam is constructed as proposed, it is probable that some division of the water from the river between the two states will be made. either by com- pact or judicial determination, Because the White Riv- er flows partly in Utah and is a part of the Colorado system. and because Utah is entitled to the use of a fixed amount of water from the system under the Up- per Colorado River Basin Compact, it is doubtful that Colorado could consumptively use all of the water of the White River. At present. however. each State's specific entitlements in the river are uncertain and will have to wait for further efforts to determine them, The BLM has concluded that the White River Dam Project could provide .a reliable source of water for energy development in the Uinta Basin for the ex- pected life of the project. The habitat requirements and other biological needs of the Colorado squawfish are not fully known. The FWS has recently completed 1 year field studies along the White River to better understand the require- ments of this endangered fish, Conclusions discussed in this Final EIS reflect available information and the professional judgement as contained in the FWS for- mal Biological Opinion. The FWS indicated that with the Implementation of the dam operating proceoures and conservation mea- sures described in the Biological Opinion. the White River Dam Project would not seriously impact the re- gion's aquatic ecosystem or the endangered native fish species, The major environmental concern appears to be the cumulative impacts of this project and others proposed within the Upper Green River system. According to the USBR. water is available from the Flaming Gorge Reservoir for beneficial consumptive uses downstream. However. contracts for the sale of this water would require the approval of the Utah Divi- sion of Water Rights (State Engineer) and the Secre- tary of the Interior, Other institutional requirements would also have to be met. The USBR has stated that non-Colorado River Stor- age Project (CRSP) developments in the Upper Col- orado River Basin should provide their own mitigation for impacts caused to endangered fishes. and the CRSP system shouid not be expected to or necessari- ly relied upon as the mitigation source, Other areas of controversy involve such issues as selection of proper dam sites. feasibility of using groundwater for oil shale development, and deter- mination of accurate sedimentation rates, 5 '1: I