Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />contract would make it more difficult for future users to obtain environmental clearance to divert <br />the approximately 300,000 acre-feet of storage reserved for development in the Preliminary <br />Working Draft for a contract. . They suggested that if contract wa,ter were released in one large <br />flushing block, that environmental approvals for the release of remaining "excess" water of the <br />State would be harder to get. <br /> <br />B. Alternatives Considered <br /> <br />Item 11. <br /> <br />Alternatives to Consider - Suggestions for alternatives concerned different ways <br />todefme "no action;" different actions, other than development of a contract, to <br />resolve the issues (non-contractalternatives); and developing alternative contract <br />provisions for evaluation which emphasize meetingcompetitlve needs in varying <br />degrees (contract alternatives), <br /> <br />Refer to: Gunnison and Montrose meetings; Arapahoe County; Mr, Clark; the City of Colorado <br />Springs; CREDA; the NPCA; Mr. Miller; Montrose Partners; the Sierra Club; UGRWCD, (26 <br />comments) , <br /> <br />We received many ,suggestions identifying alternatives to study, Some comments provided <br />guidance for defmition and use of a "no-action" alternative, proposed alternatives to the idea of . <br />developing a water service contract to resolve issues (non-contract alternatives). We also <br />received assistance towards developing contract(s) which might meet competing needs in varying <br />degrees (contract alternatives), These suggestions will help us fonnulate alternatives for <br />analysis, as well as identify actions which are beyond the scope or'this effort and could therefore <br />be eliminated from further consideration, <br /> <br />It will be difficult to define a "no action" alternative. Once defmed(see Item I), continuation <br />, of historic management (before the research flows began) may function as the "no action" <br />alternative and defme the base against which other alternatives are compared, As Mr. Clark <br />wrote, "It would be helpful in this EIS to fully set out the current, alternative, and proposed <br />operating principles of the Aspinall Unit." Current operations, however, are already responding <br />to changes required for historic operation. Comments relating to possible aspects of a "no <br />action" alternative include: . <br /> <br />. Maintain historic conditions--includes meeting existing water rights, such asCWCB',s 300 <br />cfs instreamflow <br />. Rely on future NPS pursuit of Federal reserved water right in State water court to, meet <br />Black Canyon needs <br />. Rely on the recommendations of Section 7 consultation to meet endangered fish needs <br />. Use Crystal Reservoir as a re-regulating reservoir to meet downstream flows while <br />accommodating power production <br /> <br />The public identified other "non-contract" actions for consideration, some of which could be <br />integrated with or modify this effort. If an action is considered more viable to res.olve issues <br /> <br />22 <br />