|
<br />".', '" r ') '19 '7
<br />" < ',I
<br />
<br />Other water right issues need to be considered in the study, according to the Non-FederalParties,
<br />to the 1975 Agreement. For example, the 300 cfs minimum fiowin the Black Canyon below.
<br />the Gunnison Tunnel is not intended to be met solely from direct flows as stated in the proposed '
<br />contract. The BOR's stated operating principles for the Aspinall Unit acknowledge the
<br />maintenance of a 300 cfs minimum flow through the Black Canyon as a Federal responsibility,
<br />The operating principles provide that this flow be met through both direct flows and releases
<br />from storage in the Aspinall Unit. The BOR has indicated that it anticipates continuing the'
<br />practice of guaranteeing a minimum flow of 300 cfs in the Black Canyon once the CWCB's
<br />instream flow water right is in place, The purpose of the CWCB water right is to protect the
<br />natural environmentto a reasonable degree, and consequently the instream flow from diversion
<br />by junior water rights below the Gunnison Tunnel and within the instream flow reach, The
<br />CWCB does not anticipate a need to "call" out juniors upstream of the AspinallUnit; the 300,
<br />cfs minimum flow will already be in the river because of Aspinall operlitions that bypass water
<br />to downstream seniors, generate hydropower, and otherwise maintain a 300 cfs flow below the
<br />tunnel. The Black Canyon must quantify its decreed reserved right in District Court for Water
<br />Division 4 before any "calls" under a date as early as 1933 can be administered, Bypasses of
<br />inflow, other than power operations, from Aspinall to the Black Canyon mayor may not be
<br />considered releases of storable inflow from Aspinall,
<br />
<br />According to the UGRWCD, operations to provide the 300 cfs minimum should continue in such.
<br />a manner that the 300 cfs instream water right donated by the Nature Conservancy will not need '
<br />to place a call on water users upstream from Blue Mesa Reservoir, Also, the proposed contract
<br />should not result in downstream calls which result in curtailment of Upper Gunrtison Basin water.
<br />supplies or have an adverse impact on water uses and rights in the Gunnison Basin,
<br />
<br />The effect of the contract on the "1975 Exchange Agreement" should be addressed as well as
<br />on other agreements in the basin according to comments received in Montrose, Also asked was
<br />how the contract would affect flows in the Uncompahgre River because of the physical and water
<br />agreement ties with the Gunnison River.
<br />
<br />As discussed in Item 10, the proposed contract may affect Colorado's ability to use its Compact
<br />entitlement and this should be addressed, Arapahoe County stated thattherewere both ample,
<br />flows in the Gunnison River to maintain stream flows in the Black Canyon and to allow,
<br />Colorado to develop its Compact entitlement. The 300 cfs minimum flow through the Black '
<br />Canyon is a good alternative for protection of the Black Canyon; necessary studies must be
<br />conducted to determine the benefits and potential damages from any greater flows, The Union
<br />Park Project is obligated to guarantee minimum flows of 200 cfsfrom May I through September
<br />30, and 50 cfs from October I through April 30, If BOR were to agree to pass these Union
<br />Park minimum flows, along with the 300 cfsinstream flow through theAspinall,Unit, most of
<br />the needed flows would be guaranteed, As mentioned in Item 11, Arapahoe County considers
<br />this to be a viable alternative to the contract.
<br />
<br />At the Gunnison meetings, questions were raised whether or not Arapahoe County could
<br />condemn water rights for their project and if BOR could override this,
<br />
<br />27
<br />
<br />,',. .,",'.'
<br />
<br />,'- --,
<br />-', '. -.:.>-f'",',' '_'<",,':' ..,.~'.~_^
<br />
<br />
|