Laserfiche WebLink
<br />t- <br />..-4 <br />C\J <br />c> <br />C! <br /> <br />CHAPTER IV <br /> <br />CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION <br />COMMENT LETTERS <br /> <br />.:::) <br /> <br />RONALD JOHNSTON, PROJECTS MANAGER <br />JULY 16. 1990 <br /> <br />PAGE 6 <br /> <br />If the BOR suggests curtailment of diversion amounts, one would expect the Palisade <br />Irrigation District and the Mesa County Irrigation District not to follow through with the <br />construction of the laterals and canals. <br /> <br />However, a solution to the ~savedM water could be a lease of the 1,760 acre feet to the <br />Fish and Wildlife Service by the districts. <br /> <br />This revenue would contribute toward 0 & M expenses of the improved canals and <br />laterals. <br /> <br />Nothing Jess than an agreement to divert the full water rights of both districts is acceptable. <br />Or a management of the succession of: diversion, immediate release as return flow lor <br />the fish covered by a lease of "saved" water should be considered. <br /> <br />Comment: <br /> <br />Attachment A, page 35, Draft Rsh and Wildlife Service Recommendations, paragraph 6. <br /> <br />~1. If the detention ponds associated with cross-drainage facilities for the <br />Hightine Canal are not constructed as originally proposed, the loss at <br />wildlife habitat will need to be addressed. We anticipated the ponds would <br />have provided a certain amount of riparian habitat and free water available <br />on a limited basis. This riparian habitat would need to be replaced <br />through additional land purchases and intensive management. In addition, <br />the free water would need to be replaced by placing lour guzzlers in <br />locations to be determined by the Colorado Division of Wildlife and the <br />Rsh and Wildlife Service: <br /> <br />This request requires an understanding of something that does not exist Is there a lake, <br />a river, an estuary existing today north of 1.70 in the Lewis Wash area or Moulton Valley <br />that provide a riparian habitat? Are there current watering points for game in existence for <br />any length of extended time north of 1-70 in this area? <br /> <br />Why is there mitigation for something that has never existed and why is mitigation <br />necessary for a concept that is to be deleted? Is this more of the BOA's obliging <br />negotiating stance to ensure there will be a project to construct, control, and inspect? <br /> <br />The BOA's willingness to negotiate and buy support is not unique to the Grand Valley Unit. Another <br />instance is the Lower Gunnison winter water deliberations. This project anticipates a potential salt <br />reduction annually of 74,000 tons at a cost effectiveness figure of $38 per ton of salt removed; estimated <br />construction costs are $28,000,000 (1988). A simple concept is employed: stop the seepage caused by <br />the continual winter water run in the canals of the Uncompaghre Valley Water Users Association (UVWUA) <br />by stopping winter water run. <br /> <br />The Board of Directors of the UVWUA had voted to stop the winter water run in early 1980 before the BOA <br />appeared. Tri.County Water Conservancy District had made water easily available to livestock and less <br />than 200 users depended on the winter canal water. And maintenance of canals with winter water was <br /> <br />54 <br />