|
<br />
<br />, Black Canyon and Curecanti Purposes and ResoHrces - The NPS should defme
<br />its pUIposes,need,and authority for involvement i;n the contract, especiallywith
<br />respecttoprotecting Black Canyon and Curecanti pUIposes and resources, and in '
<br />quantification of the Black Canyon' s Fed~ral reseJ!ved water right. '
<br />
<br />:Refer to: Gunnison, Montrose, and Delta meetings; Arapahoe COUnty; Congressman Campbell;
<br />the City ()f Colorad() Springs; CRWCD; CWCB; the NPCA; Mr. Jorgenson; the Montrose
<br />Economic Development Council; MontrosePattners; Non-Federal Parties to the 1975 Exchange
<br />Agreement;Mr, Robinson; the Sierra Club; UGRWCD, (46 copllilents)
<br />
<br />Item 3.
<br />
<br />, , " '
<br />Many comments recogniZed the need, and authority of the NPS Ito enter into a water delivery
<br />contract, especiallytoresolve issues related to its 19,33 Federal teserved right. ,The Colorado "
<br />Depattment of Natural' Resources noted that this may require t~e NPS to address conflicting
<br />needs between the Black Canyon and Curecanti. ., '
<br />,', ' ,
<br />
<br />" '
<br />. , ,
<br />The' NPCA and the' Sierra Club noted that ,thepUIposes of Nl'Sinvolvement' must correspond
<br />to pUlposes of the Antiquities Act, the 1933 Proclamation Act establishing the Black Canyon,
<br />and the "fundamental pUIposes" stated in the National Park Sy~iem Organic Act. Montrose
<br />, Partners suggested that the Organic Act applies to administratiQn of national parks; national
<br />monuments are administered under the Antiquities Act and estal)lishing proclamations. ,They
<br />thought it inappropriateJor theNPS to establish pUIposes for Ithe reserved right under the
<br />Organic Act.' , . ,
<br />
<br />The Montrose Economic Development Council 'was concerned that theNPS "appears to have
<br />most if not all the say in how the water under the proposed contract would,be rel~sed,'i and
<br />questioned "Shouldn~t releases be controlled by an entity with a1 broader perspective than the'
<br />National Park Service,' both enviroDl1)entaJ and otherwise?"
<br />
<br />. . .,. . . ' '. . .
<br />The UGRWCD expressed the need for clear definition of the ~nvironment that the NPS is
<br />striving to create or protect: . Pre-Gunnison Tunnel, pre-Aspinall, or post-Aspinall, and
<br />commented, that the historic canyon conditions need to be fully, described, TheNPCA, ,the,
<br />Sierra Club, and Montrose Partners commented, on the nee4 for theanaiysis to thorougWyand
<br />correctly enumerate the resource values aJld Congressional mandates for th~ 1933 Black CanYOn
<br />reservation and the 1976 wilderness designation in the Black CaIjyon;
<br />
<br />, ,
<br />While many commented that the contract shouid be a vehicle to ~solve Federal reserved water
<br />right issues, the Sierra Club commented that it should not obviate (heneed for the NPS to p\lrsue
<br />the right(s) for the various land designations in the'Black Canyon;, The Colorado Depattment
<br />of Natural Resources, CRWCD, UGRWCD and Gunnison meeting patticipants w~re concerned '
<br />that the NPS should' state the needs of the Black Canyon with Specificity ,., in tenns of the
<br />decreed purposes of the reserved right, criteria for meeting the decree<ipuIposes, and an
<br />operatirigscenarioor recommended hydrology.. The NPCA aqdithe Sierra Club added to the
<br />list of values of ,the Black Canyon resources whichtjle NPS should protect, and Gunnison
<br />meeting participants plus Mr. Jorgenson,' CRWCD, and Non1Federal Parties to the 1975
<br />
<br />14
<br />
|