WSP07117 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.-l c.:) N o CJ ':~ CHAPTER IV CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION -The Corps of Engineers requested more information to determine the extent of impacts to wetlands and other "waters of the United States." The only placement of fill mat,arial in the project the affects wetlands is the actual fill placed in the Stubb and Price Ditches. This type of activity is exempt under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Therefore, it has ben concluded that a Section 404 permit is not needed for the project. -Mr. Skinner indicated that the effect on endangered fish species in the Colorado River was not addressed adequately and that the "no effect" determination by the FWS was out of date. In particular, the effect of the Unit on return flows, waste water, tailwater and in turn on endangered species was not addressed. Mr. Skinner also asked for additional information on the fate of "saved" water. In 1990, the FWS updated their 1983 report and included the Price and Stubb Ditch improvements. They concluded that the Unit would not affect the endangered fish species (Fish and Wildlife Service, 1990). There are no provisions in the Salinity Control Act to assign any of the "saved" water to any Federal or state agency. The three existing salinity O&M contracts (Palisade and Mesa County Irrigation Districts, and the Grand Valley Water Users Association contracts) in the Grand Valley do not in any way alter water rights. Reclamation has always maintained that the "saved" water is only applicable within the irrigation systems not to the river system. When water diverted from the Colorado River is analyzed from the diversion point to the water's ultimate destination, irrigation system seepage eventually returns to the river and is not saved or salvaged to the river system. The question arises that, if an irrigation district had their system improved through the salinity program, could they sell, lease, or transfer the "saved" water to another party? Nothing in the Salinity Control Act or existing O&M contracts would prevent this opportunity. Colorado Law (CRS 37-43-123) specifically says: "Any irrigation district shall have a first and preferred right to the beneficial use of all seepage, waste, and percolating waters flowing within the district..." The beneficial use which may be made of water by the districts under their water rights, would be the amount reasonably required for the purposes for which the water rights were appropriated. The portion of salvaged water applied to beneficial use within a district which is not consumed by that use would form a part of return flow to the river. Under Colorado law, salvaged water not utilized for beneficial use by the districts would remain subject to the priority system on the river. The effect of the saved or salvaged water could be beneficial or detrimental to endangered fish species. If the districts are not able to beneficially use the saved water, the water would remain subject to the priority system. This could result in more water in the river between palisade and Grand Junction or it could reduce the demand for releases from upstream storage. This portion of the river is referred to as the "IS-Mile Reach" and is habitat for several endangered fish species. An increase in consumptive use of the saved water could decrease the flow in the Colorado River between Palisade and Grand Junction. The final analysis of such activity would be a matter of Colorado State water law, and if necessary would be resolved in water court. The seepage reduction resulting from the proposed improvements is estimated to be 610 acre-feet per year for the Stubb Ditch and 1,005 acre-feet for the Price Ditch. This water travels through the ground-water system and returns to the Colorado River. It is assumed that after the initial 38