WSP07175 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~r,f)fj83 ." ,I. authority exists within Colorado River Storage Project Act to make releases solely for thase purpases, the Cantractshould make it clear that thase uses are incidental uses ta the primary purpases .of the Aspinall Unit, and cannat interfere with either the primary purpases .of the Aspinall Unit or the right .of Calarada ta use its Compact, apportianments, " One .of the clear primary purpases .of the Aspinall Unit (discussed further in Item 10) is ta stare water far beneficial cansumptive use, making it passible far the Upper Basin States tause the appartianments ta atld amang them in the Colarado River Campact and the Upper Calorada River Basin Campact. Arapahae Caunty was particularly cancerned that flaws committed by , cantract wauld interfere with this purpase by causing the Aspinall Unit ta be .operated as a "flaw through" facility. They nated that such aperatian wauld benefit the Lower Basin States-,-except far the 300,000 acre-feet reserved far Compact purpases as identified ,in the Preliminary Warking Draft far a cantract. CREDA suggested t\tat "cantrol" .of the cantract extends beyond the CRSP Act and Reclamatian laws cited in paragraph 6 .of the Preliminary Warking Draft far a cantract; cantrollinglaws shauld include the "Law .of the River" and Calorada State water law. Questians .of operatianal purposes and cansistency with state law included Arapahoe Caunty's comment that providing' a "finn yield" ta the Black Canyan fram Aspinall Unit starage withaut constraints associated with incidental uses wauld require a change in Aspinall's decree (and charging theNPS far the use of that water). Arapahoe Caunty and the Non-Federal Parties ta the 1975 Exchange Agreement wrote that a "river call" to provide finn flows under the proposed Cantract c.ould nat be placed unless there is a primary purpase for the water. The Mantrase Econamic Development C.ouncil and Mr. R.obinson questianed if the c.ontract is a vialatian .of the "Ecanamic Justificatian Report" far the Aspinall Unit. This repOrt was campleted by Reclamati.on in 1957, as required by Congress with passage .of the CRSP Act ta detennine if the benefits .of the Aspinall Unit wauld exceed the casts. Mr. R.obinsan paints aut that this report stated approximately 95 percent of the Aspinall Unit's costs, with interest, wauld be paid through power sales, The Montr.ose Ec.onamic Devel.opment C.ouncil questianed if' revenue lasses w.ould be made up by recreati.onal,future purchasers, .or other users .of Aspinall water. Cancerning campatibility with State water law, Cangressman Campbell call1mented that "Few, , if any, really understand .or k1iaw precisely which water rights halders are truly entitled tathe water .of the Gunnisan River." The City .of Colarado Springs and the Nan-Federal Parties to the 1975 Exchange Agreement commented an confusion with Paragraphs 5,e. and 9.a. of the Preliminary Working Draft fora contract. Paragraph 5.e. discusses how thevalume .of water to be released pursuant to the cantract interacts with the Black Canyon's reserved right" Aspinall. direct flow power rights and storage rights, and CWCB's instream flow rights. ,Paragraph9,a, requires the NPS to pursue quantificati.on .of the Black Canyan' s reserved right, and requires that they nat "call" the right if it wauld injure .or interfere with the purpases, .operations, .or storage, 19 - ,"'- ~"