WSP07175 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

fIr ~'jglt affect releases under the contract. According to the Sierra Club, the contract analysis should address different prioritization schemes that apply to the contract versus quantification of Federal reserved water rights, The analysis should explain how the delivery schedule of the proposed ' contract compares to a delivery schedule that would be developed on the basis of reserved water rights, ' The NPCA expressed concern about the AB LaterallIydropower Project being able to contract water from the Blue Mesa water supply and thus bypass the Black Canyon. The contract should ' exclude this possibility, according to their letter. The NPCA was also concerned that the AB Lateral Project could divert excess water in high flow years when the Black Canyon WaS able. to receive the maximum 736,000 acre-feet discussed in the Preliminary Working Draft for a contract. The analysis and contract should address these concerns. Other projects need to be considered in the analysis, for example the Redlands Power and Irrigation Project, Dallas Creek Project, Dominquez Project and other existing or proposed projects in the Gunrtison River Basin. How would these projects affect releases under the' contract, and vice versa? The contract and NEPA analysis need to address the proposed Wild River designation of the Gunnison River and any water right that goes along with this designation. As previously mentioned in Item 4, Mr. Greeno wrote that the water right for this designation should be dated October 2, 1979, which would be senior toAB Lateral Hydropower water rights. One respondent suggested more stable winter flows with higher spring peaks and summer flows. Alternatives should provide specific flow infonnation, Item 10. Colorado's Compact Entitlement - Alternatives should provide flexibility for Colorado to develop (and use) its Compact entitlement. Refer to: Gunnison meetings; Arapahoe County; the City of Colorado Springs; the NPCA; Mr. Miller; the Montrose Economic Development Council, Senator Hank Brown. (10 comments) As previously mentioned, a primary purpose of the Aspinall Unit is to allow Colorado and the other Upper Basin States to develop and use 'their entitlement apportioned by interstate, agreements, including the 1922 Colorado River Compact and the 1948 Upper Colorado River Basin Compact. Gunrtison participants, Arapahoe County, the City of Colorado Springs and Mr. Miller were concerned that contractual commitments to the Black Canyon and/orendangered fish recovery would hinder Colorado's ability to fully utilize its Compact entitlement, and would give the Lower Basin States the legal benefit to the water. Arapahoe County wrote thattheAspinall, Unit itself is located such that its water is not used within Colorado, and worried that water released through the contract would take water further from any conceivable statewide use, Senator Brown wrote, "It is important that any action taken by the Department of the Interior' concerning the operation of the Aspinall Unit does not impairColorad~'s ability to lIse its Compact entitlement." The Montrose Economic Development Council was concerned tbat the 21 ,(''" ,,,,,~, :,;--' :,,":, ',_ i.i>' ,,; k ,__:,