REP38877 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Kathy Welt and Christine Johnston Mazch 7, 1997 (DRAFT) Page 11 Table 1 provides MCC's diversions from, return flows to, and resulting depletions to the North Fork for four different time periods. (These time periods are described in the previous section.) Review of Table 1 leads to these observations pertaining specifically to water rights: I. In 1996, MCC discharged more water to the North Fork than it diverted from the North Fork. Specifically, there was a surplus of approximately 173 acre-feet that came primarily during the late spring and early summer when B East Mains fault inflows were at their highest. 2. During November and December 1996, there were North Fork depletions (diversions minus return flows equals depletions) because MCC was storing most of the Mount Gunnison Pipeline water, along with fault inflows, in the sumps. However, there was no North Fork call during this time; hence, no vested downstream water rights were damaged as a consequence of storing water in the sumps. Furthermore, North Fork minimum stream flows were maintained during this period. 3. During January 1 through October 1, 1997 (an assumed date for when the new treatment facility will be operational), there will be no net North Fork depletions, because mine discharges will equal or exceed surface diversions. Further, MCC will ensure that any North Fork water which is diverted when the Mount Gunnison Pipeline is out of priority will be frilly replaced by its other North Fork water rights. 4. After the new treatment plant is operational, there will likely be no North Fork depletions because the treatment capacity of up to 2,000 gpm will exceed the maximum surface diversion rate. 5. After analyzing the 1996 and projected 1997 North Fork diversions and return flows, WWE Etas concluded that there aze no Section 7 (of the Endangered Species Act) issues that arise from MCC's management of the B East Mains fault inflows, including use of the underground sumps. That is, the endangered fish species in the lower Colorado River will not be harmed as a consequence of MCC's water management practices because MCC has introduced (during 1996) and will introduce (during 1997) more water than it will divert from the North Fork on an annual basis. W WE has concluded that, if necessary, MCC could successfully secure a substitute supply plan front the SEO that would account for sump operations and reflect anticipated mine water management during the rest of 1997 (substitute supply plans are valid for one year). However, given that the District 40 Water Commissioner has been satisfied with MCC's past operational practices, a substitute supply plan Wray not be necessary. MCC has appropriated the fault inflow water and intends to obtain a decree front Colorado Water Court for water rights on fault inflows. MCC has also appropriated waters stored in the NW Panel sealed sumps and will file for storage rights on the sumps in 1997. MCC has stored fault water inflows and other groundwater inflows in the NW Panel sealed sump during November 1996 through January 1997. Although MCC does not yet have a decreed storage right for this sump, the following factors are important in this regard: