Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Aspinall Unit itselt), and asl<:edhow much water has been released to satisfy senior rights of the <br />Gunnison Tunnel and Redlands diversions, Delta meeting participants requested we identify how <br />Blue Mesa Reservoir has been managed to benefit users today"-fot both releases and water held <br />in storage. The NPCA and others were concerned about how or if power generation <br />commitments would affect the contract. Commissioner. Corey atld Mr. Jorgenson thought that <br />flatwiLter and river recreational benefits associ,ated with, historic management should be ' <br />maintained, including fisheries develop~ in Blue Mc;:sa Reservofr and the Gunnison River. <br /> <br />The contract analysis should address and define, the various "pools"of water available within <br />Blue Mesa, and relate these amounts to deliveries under the propqsed contract. Clarification is <br />needed for commitments for Blue Mes,awatet to satisfy: Colorado's (and other Upper Basin <br />State's) Compact entitlement; existing contractual commitments; .subordination of Aspinall <br />storage rights to ,existing and future Upper Gunnison developments; releases for satisfaction of <br />downstream senior water rights; water available for sale; and water for endangered fish, <br /> <br />, , <br />..' Gunnison and Deltameetingparti~ipants, UGRWCD, and cweB were concel')1ed that <br />contract operation may impact the 1975 TaylorPark Reservoir Operation and Storage <br />Exchange Agreement (1975 Agreement), ' <br /> <br />, . '. , <br />.. , Many questionecl the source and validity of the 300,000 acre"feet calculation as the <br />amount of storage in Blue Mesa that is available for ben~ficialconsumptive use (sale) , <br />within the State of Colorado, as identified in thepreli!hinary working draft for the <br />contract. Arapahoe County and the City of Colorado Sprjngs suggested that there is no <br />provision restricting, the, amount' to be stored and availabl4 for beneficial u~e to be only, <br />3OQ.,000 acre-reet. The City of Colorado Springs suggested that this 300,000 acre-feet <br />is available "above" the Aspinall Unit, including for tf!lnsmC/llntain diversion; Non- <br />Federal Parties to the 1975 Exchange Agreement and Gunnison meeting participants <br />maintained that under the decrees for the Aspinall Unit\any use of water from the <br />Aspinall Unit must be made within the natural basin ,of the Gunnison River; , <br /> <br />.. Congressman Campbell, Commissioner Corey, Gunnisoni meeting I>articipantsand the <br />Non-Federal Parties to the 1975 Exchange Agreement sllggestthata historic commitment <br />and/or objective of operation has been to subordinate 60,000 acre~feetof Blue Mesa <br />storage to protect the Upper Gunnhon Basin from "calls", by dowl}stream senior Water <br />" right holders,' including decrees of the Aspinall Unit itself. Many, including the NPCA, <br />requested more infonnation on whethffrthis60,000acre-f~t is part of the 300,000 acre- <br />feet, how this subordination is to be ~dministered, and ,how .it will affect contract <br />alternatives, ' <br /> <br />.. CREDA and the Non-Federal Parties to the 1975 Exchange Agreement requested <br />discussion of Aspinall' Unit commitments, to satisfy requirements .of the Biological <br />Opinions for the Dolores and Dallas Creek Projects. These opinions identify up to <br />148,000 acre-feet of depletions that must be replaced to offset impacts to endangered fish <br />aSSociated with those projects (see Item 6). ", <br /> <br />12 <br />