Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Item S. <br /> <br />Colorado's Interests - Involvement by the State of Colorado is needed to protect <br />their interests in the management of water and associated resources of the <br />Colorado River basin, ' <br /> <br />, <br />Refer to: Montrose meetings; Arapahoe County; the City of Colorado Springs; CRWCD; <br />, CWCB; CREDA; the NPCA; the Non-Federal Parties to the 1975 Exchange Agr\ltlment, (15 <br />comments) <br /> <br />Montrose meeting participants questioned: "How is (the) Colora,do Water Conservation Board <br />involved-- need their approval of contract?" , Page 19 of the Public Infonnation Packet mentions <br />that while the CWCB hasdecided to participate in contract negotiations, it has not decided if <br />they will be signatory to the contract. Arapahoe County stated: ' ' <br /> <br />"It is CWCB's statutory duty to protect and develop the water of the State for the benefit <br />of the present and future inhabitants cif the State, Further, it is CWCB's duty to <br />investigate and assist in fonnulating a response to the plans of the Federal government <br />which affect Or might affect the development of the water resources of this State, " <br /> <br />The CWCB wrote to reiterate their intention to continue to work with the Federal agencies <br />involved to address and resolve the issues'of concern to them as listed on page ,19 of the <br />Infonnation Packet; this list was modified to emphasize their interests in quantification of the <br />reserved water right of the Black Canyon andcompletipn of Section 7 consultation on operation' . <br />of the Aspinall Unit. <br /> <br />As mentioned under Item 21, the State of Colorado has ,deciqed to be represented by the <br />Colorado Department of Natural Resources to coordinate participiltion by the CWCB and other <br />, affected State agencies. . <br /> <br />The Non-Federal Parties to the 1975' Exchange Agreemental~o wrote to request that they <br />(CRWCD, UGRWCD and UVWUA) be included as parties to the contract to represent interests <br />of Gunnison Basin water users, <br /> <br />Montrose meeting particiPllnts questioned how a "variable flow cOl1tract" could be enforced, and <br />if the CWCB is needed to approve the contract. Arapahoe County commented that the CWCB <br />should not be aparty to a contract in whichBOR makes wat~ravailable based upon only <br />incidental uses of the Aspinall Unit, and in which flow rates are too vague to detennine effects <br />on Colorado's compact apportionment. Senator Brown echoed concerns voiced by Arapahoe <br />County that any action not impair Colorado's ability to use its Compact entitlt::ment. The NPCA <br />suggested that the "Colorado Water Conservation Board, and other State agencies, also have <br />, obligations to, protect the public interest and environmental values...", and suggested that the <br />CWCB "should oppose applications for substantial new diVersions or deph~tions. above the <br />Monument." The NPCA also asked: "Will the Bureau of Reclamation sign its Aspinall Unit <br />water supply over to the. Colorado Water Conservation Board to help fulfill Colorado's <br />remaining Compact allocation?" . <br /> <br />16 <br />