Laserfiche WebLink
<br />}:,:,.' . <br /> <br />The NPCA asked how the Union Park Project, or similar projects, would affect the water supply <br />available to the Black Canyon, and asked if the CWCB would agree to limit transbasin <br />diversions in order to maintain a water supply to the Black Canyon. In addition, the <br />relationship with the proposed designation ofthe Gunnison River as a Wild River, and associated <br />water rights, should be addressed. <br /> <br />In Montrose, concern was express~ that "calls" on the riveT related to the Aspinall Unit <br />operation and the contract could impact values upstream, trigger collapse of agriculture uses, <br />recreation uses, and other uses of water, <br /> <br />Also in Montrose, participants stated that 300 cfs should not be settled on as an adequate amount <br />of water to protect the Black Canyon. Better minimums in the summer would be 400 to 500 cfs; <br />this would help mitigate canyon flash floods and sediment problems as well as have other <br />benefits. Further comments in Montrose recommended that the impacts of water deliveries to <br />the Black Canyon or to endangered fish on junior and senior water rights be addressed in the <br />analysis. The analysis should also address where and at what cost replacement water for junior <br />rights would be obtained, Congressman Campbell expressed a need for hydrology studies <br />showing effects on water right holders and water uses, <br /> <br />According to the CRWCD, the NPS must state its intent regarding administration of its Federal <br />reserved water right for the Black Canyon and must quantify resulting impacts on specific public <br />and private water rights and uses. Impacts on water rights and water use upstream and <br />downstream from water releases for endangered fish also must be addressed, <br /> <br />The NPCA also stated that effects on upstream water users should be addressed, particularly <br />effects during dry years. They also asked how future Compact calls would affect the proposed <br />contract, and if the State of California should limit downstream calls under the Compact to <br />protect and ensure the timing of flows needed for endangered fish recovery, Concerning water <br />use in Colorado, they requested infonnation on how much of Colorado's remaining allocation <br />would come from the Gunnison River and if BOR would sign its Aspinall Unit water supplies <br />to the CWCB to help fulfill Colorado's remaining Compact allocation. The effect of existing <br />downstream diversions or their interaction with the contract should be addressed, as well as the <br />effect of possible transfer of downstream rights to upstream diversions. <br /> <br />The NPCA recommended that the proposed contract also provide water to meet the needs of a <br />Wild River designation fOT the Gunnison River and that any water right for this designation be <br />addressed in the contract. <br /> <br />The City of Colorado Springs discussed plans to turn the 300 cfs minimum flow through the <br />Black Canyon into an instream flow water right and expressed concern about "stacking" other <br />water deliveries on top of this, The City also expressed concern that a section of the draft <br />contract (paragraph 9,a) is selective subordination and asked whether this subordination needed <br />adjudication in the State water court. <br /> <br />28 <br />