Response to Comments on the Colorado River Wat

Response to Comments on the Colorado River Water Supply Availability Scope of Work - October 19, 2007 Individual and/or Date of Comment Response Organization Comment Following above review, and in consultation with State legal options may be included in Phase II. counsel, prepare and document reasonable ranges for Colorado’s Colorado River allowable depletions, and the associated (for the Compacts) stream flow leaving the State. Also document reasona ble ranges of values during several drought cycles (1930s, 1950s and 2000 - 05). Southwest BRT 10/10/07 We want to reiterate the importance of the west slope roundtables See “Roundtable Participation in the Study” below having the opportunity to review, critique, and comment on the draft study report. We would request that as part of the review process, a presentation be made at one of our roundtable meetings. Southwest BRT 10/10/07 We fully support the use of CDSS to provide the data and models The CDSS will be the basis of this study. The study will for use in conducting the study. The CDSS was established for benefit from the previous work and investments in the CDSS. use in assessm ent of water availability and should be the foundation for conducting the study. Southwest BRT 10/10/07 We believe it is essential that t he analysis of water availability be See “Roundtable Participation in the Study” below based on generally accepted data. This is particularly important when attempting to develop a hydrologic record beyond the recorded data. Data that is not generally accepted will undermine the results of the study. Grand County 10/15/2007 Questions 1 - 5 and 11 - 12 from comment letter relating to including The scope of work was amended to recognize that categories environmental impacts in Phase 1 analysis. of water use in clude beneficial uses recognized under Colorado water law and other “non - water right” considerations such as reservoir operations, by - pass flows, endangered species flows, etc. Roundtable members will have an opportunity to review and understand how these “non - water right” considerations are included in the model (see “Roundtable Participation in the Study” below). Additional e nvironmental impacts are important and will be brought into the discussions through the basin - wide water needs assessments and Pha se II of the study . Grand County 10/15/2007 6) Scope of Work Refinement states “water supply alternatives” The scope of work was amended to add “water needs” to and should be changed to “water needs” evaluation list. Grand County 10/15/2007 7) Literatur e Review should include the UPCO Study, Grand The list presented in the scope is no t intended as an all County Stream Management Plan, Studies of Environmental exclusive list. T he reports listed , and others, will be Impacts on Colorado River and its tributaries and Glenwood incorporated into the studies literature review. The scope of Springs Salt Compound Desalinatiion/Congeneration Project work was amended to reflect other reports/studies can be included. 8 of 10 Page