Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />There were many comml1nts concerning hydrology and water rights. They centered around the <br />themes of how the contract would affect present and future water rights and uses and how the <br />contract would protect water in the Bi!lck Canyon. . <br /> <br />At the public meetings in Gunnison, the question was raised on how shortages in water supply , <br />would be shared during dry water years (i.e. fish and hydropo~er should share) and whether <br />annual variations in snowpackwould be cO!lsidered,The effect of.future snowmakihg operations <br />,on the contract IpId vice versa should be considered,' The overall. effect of water deliveries' on <br />, Upper Gunnison aquifers, wells, and wetlands needs to be considered in relation to the changed <br />manner in which, water rights would be administered: ,Plans to lower Blue. Mesa. Reservoir to <br />reduce iping, followed by plans Jor high spring flows and bypasses may cause Blue Mesa not <br />to fiU under the contra,ct. . . <br /> <br />Atthe Gunnison meeting, it was suggested that the premise be established that the contract not <br />impact instream rights, the 1975 Exchange Agreement between TlIylorPark and Blue Mesa, and <br />existing water uses. ,The study should speci1'ically assess impacts oninstream flows in tl1eUpper <br />Gunnison Basin and the contract should not impact upstream users with, additional water calls <br />related to the Black Canyon or Aspinall Unit. The contract should exempt small domestic and <br />commercial wells in the Upper Gunnison Basin from "water call~." <br /> <br />, ""'" <br />CREDA requested that effects On downstream water riglits be covered and also requeste4 that <br />the relationship between the contract and water calls be described, ' <br /> <br />The Non-Federal Parties to the 1975 Exchange Agteement(tJVWUA, UGRWCD, and CRWCD) , <br />suggested that the contract should properly define the nature of the conditions placed on Aspinall <br />Unit operations by the water right decrees in effect for the Aspinall Unit, the assignment of <br />those water rights to the United States from theCRWCD in 1963, the agreement under .which <br />60,000 acre-feet of upstream depletions are anticipated by post-Aspinall projects upstream, of <br />Crystal Dam, and the interests of all the parties to the 1975 Exchange Agreement. <br /> <br />The NPCA stated thauhe most demanding element of the NEPA analysis wilI be clearly <br />presenting the current water supply situation and impacts and con!lequel1ces of each alternative. <br />Some of the infonnation that needs to be provided includes Historic inflow to Blue Mesa, <br />histonc diversions through the c;Junnison Tunnel, and pre- and post-Aspinall Unit diversions by" <br />the RedlandsDiversionDam near Grand Junction, 'Infonnation should also include whether a <br />300 cfs minimum flow through. the Black Canyon llI1d GUnniSOlI Gorge is sufficient toc()ver <br />, water needs of all senior water right holders in the Lower Gunnison Basin except the Redlands <br />andUricompahgre Project diversions, and a tabulation, by alternative, on how much water would <br />, be available to the Black Canyon during dry, nonnal, and wet years. <br /> <br />Montrose Partners, sponsors of the AB LateralHydropower prqject, stresSed that priority be <br />given to hydrology studies Since environmental and social ~pact$ wiUbe related to changes in <br />hydrology. Specifically, effects on water supply of releases to'the Black Canyon should be <br />detennined at ,an early stage. <br /> <br />26 <br />