Advanced Search
|
Site Map
Resources
Home
Archives
Press Releases
Media
Litigation
Open Records
Opinion
Government
Don't Buy A Lie!
Dam promoters cleave to false and corrupt pretense of justice.
Romer/Schoettler Charade: The Public's Questions Left Unanswered
Posted by
Steve Cone
on 2:57 AM December 18, 2004.
Animas-La Plata Discussions
Questions Posed
Regarding the Priority Options
December 16, 1996
Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce
Below are the questions that the teams have developed on the options identified in the "Priority Options List" document developed at the Farmington, New Mexico meeting on December 3, 1996. The U.S. Department of the Interior's material is provided in a separate document. The State of New Mexico did not produce a list of questions.
Opponents
These questions address the list of "Priority Options" (see ALP Discussions Meeting Notes from December 3rd meeting in Farmington). Due to the short timeline for the preparation of
these questions, some of them are lengthy and may overlap. We are willing to unify and condense these questions, or to further prioritize them, at a later date. These questions are directed solely towards the "priority list" developed at the December 3rd meeting. We reserve the right to submit additional questions relevant to other options proposed and additional questions relating to these options as the ALP discussions proceed.
Option 1: Use of and/or extension of existing federal facilities
1. Please conduct a complete reoperations study. Identify all existing federal water projects in the ALP project area (e.g. Navajo, Vallecito, Florida, Dolores, Hammond, etc.). For each project, identify the design and actual capacity, actual current demands, how water is allocated and how it is used. How does the demographic shift from a largely agricultural base to a more suburban community, and associated subdivision of land, affect the current and projected uses of irrigation water (directed to BOR)?
2. Identify for each project, what waste and surplus water exists. Can the Florida project be reoperated to provide the 2500-3000 acre feet that the City of Durango may need over the next 20-40 years? Can storage be increased by any amount in either Lemon or Vallecito through mechanical changes or operational changes? Can any identified surplus water made available through project efficiency be allocated to the Southern Ute Tribe for their use (directed to BOR)?
3. Describe how water is allocated from the Dolores, the Florida, the Pine and Navajo. How is water under contract different from water that is actually being used? What water and/or storage capacity could be captured from these projects and used to satisfy legitimate ALP water needs (directed to BOR)?
4. The Hammond, Florida, and Vallecito projects, plus other reclamation projects in the area, have large areas where the farms and irrigated lands have been subdivided and subsidized federal irrigation water is now being supplied to the equivalent of residential lots. This water essentially has been converted to M&I use. The Florida project also has large acreages upon which the water is not being used -- paid for but not used. What total acreage has been subdivided and converted from agriculturally defined usage under Reclamation rules and regulations in each of these projects? What quantity of this water should or could be converted to M&I usage? What is the process to convert irrigation water to M&I water under existing projects? How are existing contracts amended to accomplish this (directed to BOR)?
5. Please provide a detailed and ordered list by priority, of each watershed's water rights within the San Juan Basin. What percentage of the area's water use for irrigation does the federal system constitute? Compare that with non-federal irrigation systems (directed to CO, NM, BOR).
6. What quantity of return flows and unused water exists now, even in Water Districts that are apparently fully appropriated? For instance, the Florida River, a nominally fully-utilized project, flows quite full at Bondad Hill all summer long. Why are these return flows so large and how could they be reallocated (directed to BOR)?
7. What is the current basis for assuming that Durango will participate in ALP when the 1996 revised cost estimates make ALP appear infeasible to the City when compared to all other alternatives that the City's consultant reviewed? What additional options can BOR suggest for alternative supply and treatment facilities, realizing that certain institutional barriers may need to be removed to implement them (directed to BOR)?
8. Existing reservoirs in the project area have inactive pools. To what extent can this inactive capacity be captured to meet water needs in the ALP project area (directed to BOR)?
9. What quantity of water might be available under existing priorities from the La Plata Drainage for Southern Ute Reservoir or will its total supply have to come from the Animas river (directed to BOR)?
10. Please provide an inventory of all water contracts, the quantity and purposes of water supplied, and their expiration dates, for all federal projects in the San Juan Basin and for the Dolores project (directed to BOR).
11. What is the status of the federal repayment contract on each project (e.g. Vallecito, Lemon, Navajo, Dolores, San Juan, Hammond, etc.) that could help satisfy area demands? When will they be paid off? What is the current amount owed the federal government in each that could be paid in a lump sum? Can the terms of these repayment contracts be changed if the contract is paid off? Can M&I water, which normally needs actual cost recapture, be utilized differently if the project debt is paid (directed to BOR)?
12. For a complete look at reoperations, the internal structure of the individual Districts must be looked at as well as BOR and federal contract requirements. Is the BOR willing to be the lead agency in discussing these alternatives with the Districts? Is there a commitment to critically examine institutional barriers such as contracts or District procedures to the transfer of water in the project area (directed to BOR, Water Districts)?
13. Under existing internal procedure in most Water Districts, water is tied to lands in the District through allocation. Can these internal procedures be changed to allow water to be transferred to other users (directed to BOR, Water Districts)?
14. The BOR has proposed a number of salinity control projects for several water projects in the area (e.g. Dolores, San Juan, Hammond etc.). For each salinity control project, please provide information on the actual or estimated costs (total and on a per acre cost basis), salinity control costs compared to land value for agricultural purposes, and cost overruns in the salinity control program (directed to BOR).
Option 10: Water conservation & efficiency
15. Most of the existing federal water projects are planned utilizing flood irrigation. For each appropriate project, identify all water losses associated with this technology, and determine methods that can be employed to reduce those losses. Can the reclaimed water, with its associated cost of recapture, become a project component? Has the utilization of sprinkler systems in flood irrigation designed projects generated water for other uses? What opportunities for additional water conservation through the use of sprinkler systems exist, and can this water be used as a project component (directed to BOR)?
16. How much depletion can be avoided through streambank restoration, such as eliminating tamarisk and Russian Olive in the project area? Does the BOR have an existing pilot program on biological control of tamarisk (directed to BOR)?
17. What are the Bureau's findings on satisfying current needs through: efficiency, expansion of current projects, reworking current projects, and exchanges of water (directed to BOR)?
18. What leaks exist in the system, and what volume of water could be recovered by repairing them (directed to BOR, Water Districts)?
19. Existing irrigation projects in the project area could save substantial water by converting to sprinklers, lining canals, and incorporating and implementing other water saving and conservation measures (e.g. the salt cedar eradication program). What quantities of water could be salvaged and freed up for other uses by implementing such practices? List measures that could be implemented or may already be planned on each of the projects. Develop preliminary cost estimates for these measures (directed to BOR, CO).
20. What would the salt load savings of eliminating ALP be to (a) the Colorado Basin desalinization effort; and (b) to individual point source dischargers who must monitor TDS and lower it if excessive? Compare savings to an ALP baseline status quo (directed to BOR, EPA).
21. The salinity control project in the Grand Valley project exceeds $200 million. Are all salinity control costs paid by taxpayers? Is the BOR examining water efficiency with regard to this project? How much will such a study cost (directed to BOR)?
Option 48: Land purchases and exchanges
22. Please produce a map showing state sections eligible for exchange (directed to CO).
23. Please produce a map showing federal lands eligible for exchange (directed to DOI).
24. Please produce records of land and water rights sales in the project area for the past 5 years (directed to CO, NM).
25. Please produce any other data relating to the land purchase/exchange option proposed by the State of Colorado (directed to CO).
Option 23: Revenue stream for the Tribes
26. Has the State of Colorado's position on leasing water out of state changed since 1986 when the Governor signed the Colorado Ute Settlement Agreement (directed to CO)?
27. Has there been any monetary value assigned to the Indian water rights on the Animas and La Plata rivers under the settlement? If the answer is yes, what is that value? If the answer is no, why not (directed to BOR)?
28. What is the net present value of the savings to the States of Colorado and New Mexico, the federal government, if Phase I of the ALP is never built? This value should reflect all anticipated cost-sharing and repayment proceeds. Please provide all figures and assumptions used to answer this question (directed to BOR).
29. Please provide the present wholesale water price for all major M&I water markets connected to the Colorado River system below both Indian Reservations in the United States. Please include all markets that can be reached by projects such as the San Juan/Chama (directed to BOR).
30. If water to meet ESA obligations in the Colorado River and its tributaries below the reservations had to be acquired from private water right and storage owners, what would it cost? How much water has been used to meet ESA obligations to date? Whose water was it? Please indicate Indian and non-Indian water differences. How much water is needed to meet future ESA obligations (directed to BOR, CO)?
31. In detail, what are the terms of the repayment contracts the Ute Mountain Utes and the Southern Utes would be expected to sign if ALP Phase I is constructed? What are the projected O&M obligations? Would the Tribes have any other financial obligations in connection with the project? How do these figures compare with the obligations that would be expected of other project participants (directed to BOR)?
32. Under the proposed project, water will be available in Ridges Basin to the Tribes. What uses of Indian water in Ridges Basin Reservoir has the BOR envisioned? What are the costs of developing those uses (directed to BOR)?
Option 45: Use of power revenues
33. What is the present value of all federal power resources that have been dedicated to the ALP project? What is the difference between the BOR "project cost/charge" and the wholesale market value for power within the region accessible by wheeling. Since ALP was authorized and since Glen Canyon went on-line, the allocated ALP power has been sold to others through WAPA at grid rates. What theoretical income to the two Ute Tribes has already been passed up by these years of power resale? Additionally, please provide all information needed to calculate the past and future power value of Tribal water left in the rivers to pass through federal power generation facilities below the reservations (directed to BOR).
34. What is the net revenue gain to the federal government, yearly and over the project lifetime, of eliminating the power generation requirements for ALP and continuing to market that power at market rates? Compare savings to an ALP baseline status quo (directed to BOR).
35. What is the current cost (in January 1997) of Colorado River Storage Project power for the irrigation portion and the M&I portion of Phase One, per kilowatt hour? Do these costs remain the same if there is not an irrigation component or if only Stage A is built (directed to BOR, WAPA)?
36. Please provide a copy of the 1996 annual report required by the Secretary under section 6 of the Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956, which lays out the federal investment and the repayment thereof, from project beneficiaries on the Colorado River (directed to DOI).
Option 53: More efficient M&I demands
37. Identify exactly to whom M&I water is allocated for the proposed ALP project. Who are the actual entities that are to receive the 9200 acre feet of M&I water? Is the Shenandoah Pipeline represented by any interested party that can be identified? Is the La Plata Rural area represented by any interested party? In either case, can demands be shown that approach 6800 acre feet by these two groups? Who will pay for the (non-project) transmission, distribution and treatment of this water if users can be identified? Who will pay for this M&I water if no user is found (directed to BOR)?
38. Under the proposed project, M&I water will be supplied in times of shortage from Ridges Basin reservoir for use by SJWC with delivery at diversion points in New Mexico. Who pays for the loss to evaporation, seepage, etc. as the water moves from the outlet works of Ridges Basin to those individual diversion points some distance down river? Who is responsible for or pays for the cost of guaranteeing that the released water is not picked up by other diverters on the stream system? How is the loss in delivery calculated for this distance since the water cannot be colored or identified once it reaches the river? What is the inflow to the Animas and how is it calculated in this stretch of river between the outlet of Ridges Basin and the various diversion points for ALP water in New Mexico (directed to BOR)?
39. Describe the back-up water supply plans that relevant local municipalities have (directed to BOR, all municipalities involved).
Option 54: More efficient tribal demand
40. What are the various Tribes' current water rights holdings, including storage and direct flows, in the San Juan Basin? Provide recent yearly uses of each of these rights as documented by Colorado and New Mexico Offices of the State Engineer (directed to CO, NM).
Option 64: Modified Phase I
41. Name the rightholders, users and uses of proposed project water that currently experience a shortage of water. Name the rightholders, users and uses expected to experience a shortage of water in the future (directed to BOR).
42. Identify all uses proposed for the water impounded by Ridges Basin under Phase IA and Phase IB. When, where, how, for what purpose, and for whom (directed to BOR)?
43. Since no signed contract exists for irrigation water and since the Bureau has not even started the process of petitioning for the water in New Mexico, what is the basis for the assumption that there is still a need or desire for the irrigation component of Southern Ute Reservoir? What is the time line for getting petitions for such irrigation water and the time line for negotiating such a contract with the La Plata (New Mexico) district? What is the required petition number or percentage sign up for both ownership and acreage (directed to BOR)?
44. The Southern Ute Tribe is allocated 26,500 acre feet of project water for M&I. One of the primary uses proposed for this water is for cooling of a coal-fired power plant South of Ridges Basin on Southern Ute land. What size power plant is this based on? Who has developed this plan? Has a provider of the (non project) cost of development been identified? What are the environmental impacts of a coal-fired power plant? What is a sample scenario, and cost, for physical development of Southern Ute water if not used for power generation (directed to BOR, EPA)?
45. The Ute Mountain Ute Tribe is allocated 6,000 acre feet of project water for M&I. The primary use proposed for this water is for coal-fired power. Who has developed this plan and is the non-project cost covered? Have environmental impacts been studied (directed to BOR, EPA)?
46. If the ALP is downsized to only Phase I, or Phase I with modifications, what happens to the cost sharing component? Most of the cost sharing is in Phase II. Does that mean that the upfront cost sharing will be written off? Does that meet the 1988 Indian Water Rights and Cost Sharing Agreement (directed to BOR)?
47. What happens to the Operations & Maintenance costs in a downsized ALP? We understand that O&M meets or exceeds the ceiling for irrigators. If you reduce the total amount of project water, does this increase O&M? By how much (directed to BOR)?
48. If Southern Ute Reservoir were to become a part of Phase I, who among the signatories to the water rights settlement would pay the cost of this and related features? Could Ridges Basin be deleted if Southern Ute was built? How would the costs for Southern Ute Reservoir be allocated and distributed (directed to BOR)?
49. Under Phase I or a modified Phase I, what is the allocation of the M&I water among the individual M&I users should Stage A be the only portion built? Please give the agreed to allocations for each M&I entity and their delivery points (directed to BOR)?
50. Given today's costs estimates, what would be the cost for an acre-foot of M&I water if only Phase IA were built? What would be the cost if all of Phase I were built? If both Phases were built? Please use procedures used in Principles and Guidelines for water resource projects, including the appropriate interest rate, breaking out users separately for CO and NM (directed to BOR).
Option 65: Build Phase I as presently configured
51. For each of the features specified in the Settlement Agreement that is required to be completed to settle the water rights claims of the Tribes, please identify the current projected dates for completion and operation (directed to BOR).
52. In order for the Bureau to comply with the Leavitt Act, and assuming ALP water is put to use immediately after construction, how much would acre foot of water from ALP cost the Tribes, in terms of capital repayment and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, if they use the water themselves? How much would each acre foot of water cost if the Tribes were to market the water to non-Indian users (directed to BOR)?
53. Does the Bureau now have in place repayment contracts: (a) to ensure legally required reimbursement of the Treasury for the construction and operation of those facilities of the ALP project necessary to settle the Tribes' water rights claims; and (b) to ensure legally required reimbursement from all other project beneficiaries? If not, in either case, when will the Bureau secure such contracts in order to comply with the mandates of the Water Supply Act of 1958 and other reclamation law to have such repayment contracts in place prior to construction? Please identify what specific repayment contracts or modifications of repayment contracts must be completed in order to meet the legal requirements prior to initiating construction of ALP, and what steps remain to be undertaken by the Bureau and by each of the project sponsors to meet such requirements (directed to BOR).
54. Under the current project configuration, what is the cost of M&I water for the city of Durango? Cost of water to the ALPWCD? Is there sufficient repayment capacity from the District if the City does not participate? What happens to the upfront cost sharing component (directed to BOR)?
55. At what point will the repayment contracts with the two Ute Tribes and the Navajo Nation be signed? What features of the contracts are being contested (directed to BOR)?
56. How much irrigation water sought by the ALPWCD has been petitioned for? In Phase IA, IB and Phase 2? How are the two signed contracts, San Juan Water Commission and Animas-La Plata District, affected should only Phase I of ALP Project be built (directed to BOR)?
57. As of January 1, 1997, what total repayment and upfront obligation (in total dollars due) exist under the two above signed contracts under the rules, regulations, Presidential Orders, and laws that are required to calculate this payment? Given the ceilings in the contracts, what are the estimated dollar amounts by which the contract limits will be exceeded? Who is liable for such exceedances (directed to BOR)?
58. Since San Juan County, New Mexico did not collect the ½ mil levy last year nor is the County collecting the mil levy this year, is the San Juan Water Commission in a position to fund its contractual commitment to ALP? What assurances and commitments are required by the DOI that the County and SJWC have an ability to repay their costs (directed to BOR, SJWC)?
59. How does the ALPWCD intend to raise the repayment revenues needed for ALP? What plan do they have in place to accomplish this (directed to BOR, ALPWCD)?
60. If as is currently planned, the full sized foundation of Ridges Basin Dam is committed to and constructed, but a lesser sized dam and only Stage A, as proposed, is allowed, who pays the cost for the oversized foundation? Does this repayment become an M&I obligation since there is not an irrigation component to the project at that stage (directed to BOR)?
61. According to the contract and understanding, what location will be used for metering for repayment for Operation and Maintenance (O&M) obligation of water for SJWC (directed to BOR)?
62. Using undiscounted 1996 dollars, state the projected actual annual costs and total capital construction cost, per unit, to pump water from the Animas River, to Ridges Basin for storage and delivery, by each category of user of project water. List the entities who pay these costs by proportion and actual amount paid, per category of user. State the per unit Operation, Maintenance and Replacement costs for each category of user (directed to BOR).
63. In the event of a call on the Animas, identify the effects of Phase I on the rights, priority, and uses allowed for each Animas rightholder up and downstream from the proposed diversion (directed to CO, NM).
64. Assuming a 10 year construction period for Phase I, and an annual rate of inflation of 2 to 3 percent, who will pick up the costs attributable to inflation? Are we right to assume that almost all additional costs will become an obligation of the M&I users (directed to BOR)?
65. The Bureau admits in its recent SEIS that new power lines may be needed to satisfy project demand, but is not specific about a solution. What is the estimated cost of extending power lines from Hesperus, one of the mentioned solutions? What environmental impacts may occur in such an effort (directed to BOR, EPA)?
66. Mr. Steve Harris voiced the opinion in our 12/3/96 negotiating session that M&I water would be more expensive if only Phase IA were to be built. Please explain whether or not this is correct, and why (directed to BOR)?
67. If either Tribe were to sell the water for M&I purposes, would an M&I rate then become due on any such water? What is the Tribes' position on this stipulation in Reclamation law (directed to BOR, SU, UMU)?
68. In the Bureau's 1995 Economic Study, the statement is made on page ES-2 that the current O&M costs per acre are $43. That figure was arrived at by using a power rate that has since been raised from 17 to 21 mil. How much does this increase influence the projected O&M costs? Since much of the land in Colorado has a payment capacity of around $47 an acre, does this latest power increase cause O&M costs to exceed payment capacity? If not, how much more would power have to increase before either a deficit situation, or the inability to cover annual O&M costs, is reached? When is that day forecast to occur? What factors will most heavily influence that future date (directed to BOR)?
69. It appears that the O&M rate quoted in the 1995 report may only include federal operating costs. Are all costs accounted for? For example, has Interior only reserved enough power for Phase I, or the federal phase of the project. If so, how much more would O&M costs go up for Indian and non-Indian farmers and M&I users if they had to purchase power on the open market for phase II. Have O&M costs for non-federal administration of the Indian component been calculated? How much might this add to the total in the annual O&M bill (directed to BOR)?
70. What are the estimated wheeling charges for project power? Will these costs be spread out over all CRSP power users. Under federal law, must all O&M costs be paid on an annual basis by the actual beneficiaries -- in this case the agricultural users? How much would these wheeling charges increase per acre O&M costs if they were added in (directed to BOR, WAPA)?
71. Will the power used for Phase I of the project have to be replaced from its present use? If so, how much will this replacement power cost, for how long would replacement be required before current contract(s) expire, and who would have to make up the difference between the contract and replacement rate (directed to BOR, WAPA)?
72. Who pays for the deferred O&M costs for Indian water under the Settlement Agreement? What is the value of that deferral on an annual basis? Is it correct to assume this deferral covers both agricultural water and M&I (directed to BOR)?
73. According to Bureau estimates, individual farm expenditures for conversion of dry land to irrigated crop would average about $650 an acre on land that presently sells for $150. Have these estimates been widely distributed to the agricultural community in the project area? Using Bureau figures in the 1995 report, we estimate that on the model farms the private capital necessary to make the full conversion will approach $1 million. Are we correct in our calculation (directed to BOR)?
Proponents
Group 1
QUESTIONS RELATING TO POTENTIAL NEW WATER SUPPLIES OUT OF SOUTHWEST COLORADO/NORTH WEST NEW MEXICO RECLAMATION FACILITIES.
Introduction. The ALP opponents group has suggested that a viable alternative to the ALP is the development of additional yields from existing federal reclamation projects in Southwest Colorado and Northwest New Mexico. Of course, the express premise behind the Colorado Ute Water Rights Settlement Agreement of 1986 and Public Law 100-585 was that new storage was required in the region to make both Indian and non-Indian parties "whole" subsequent to the compromises which went into the 1986 Agreement. Moreover, the premise that new water supplies were required in the region is carefully analyzed in the §404(b)(1) analysis published in April of 1996.
The ALP proponents set forth the following questions relating to this alternative. The ALP proponents welcome comments and responses from all parties, including EPA. In reviewing these questions, keep in mind that the separate facility alternatives discussed here do not comport with the purpose and need of the ALP (to provide an assured long-term water supply for the Tribes and the Animas-La Plata-San Juan-Mancos river basins) as described in the §404(b)(1) analysis. The federal courts have consistently ruled (i) that under The Clean Water Act, the purpose and need determines the scope of alternatives, and (ii) that determining the purpose and need is the prerogative of state and local decision makers - and not citizen groups and governmental agencies organized to protect the environment.
McPHEE RESERVOIR.
1. Is it not true that any additional yield out of McPhee Reservoir will require significant re-configuration of the reservoir, including the outlets?
2. Is it not true that any increase in the yield will require reducing the elevation of the inactive pool which in turn increases significantly the pumping costs?
3. Is it not true that the only unused yields from McPhee Reservoir are (i) allocated to the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, which is in the process of developing on-farm facilities to utilize this yield and (ii) an M&I allocation whose repayment was recently the subject of a public election?
4. Is it not true that there exists a waiting list of farmers who have indicated an interest in utilizing the available M&I supply on a temporary basis?
5. Is it not true that to make that M&I supply, estimated to be in the neighborhood of 5,000 acre/feet, available to an ALP proponent such as the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, a new public election would be required?
6. Is it not true that if the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe were to obtain any new yield from McPhee Reservoir, that its existing canal facility is not sized to enable it to deliver the water?
7. Is it not also true that if the Tribe were to increase the sizing of its canal facility, that the only lands that could be served are lands that USBR has determined possess salinity and other characteristics which would adversely impact water quality?
8. Is it not true that conservation efforts (i.e. sprinklers) at the Montezuma Valley Irrigation District (to secure additional yield for the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe) would (i) likely have adverse impacts on return flows in the McElmo Creek, (ii) likely have adverse impacts on riparian values and wetlands located within the MVID system, and (iii) require the consent of MVID water users?
9. In light of questions 8 above, is it not true that for the ALP proponents to secure a new water supply from McPhee Reservoir, existing contracts to deliver water must be voluntarily relinquished?
JACKSON GULCH RESERVOIR.
10. Is it not true that there exists no additional water supplies in the West Mancos which would be available to provide additional storage in an enlarged Jackson Gulch Reservoir?
11. Is it not true that given the fact that Jackson Gulch Reservoir currently fills completely a geographic basin, that enlargement of the Reservoir would require a considerable expense in building a dike nearly all the way around the circumference?
12. Is it not true that capturing potential available flow in the East Mancos for use on certain Ute Mountain Ute ALP lands would require the development of a new Mancos area reservoir and pump and canal facilities?
13. Is it not true that under the 1986 Agreement, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe possesses the right to all excess water in the Mancos River Basin?
14. Is it not true that in the analysis undertaken leading up to the Colorado Ute Settlement Agreement it was determined that no Tribal lands in the vicinity of the Lower Mancos River exists which are suitable and practicable for irrigation?
15. In light of questions 5 above, is it not true that for the ALP proponents to secure a new water supply from Jackson Gulch Reservoir, existing contracts to deliver water must be voluntarily relinquished?
LEMON RESERVOIR.
16. Is it not true that new conservation practices (i.e. sprinkler irrigation) if adopted by current users of Lemon Reservoir yields would adversely affect aquifers now fed by gravity irrigation practices and now utilized by community residents for domestic purposes?
17. Is it not true that conservation practices inevitably result in a reduction in open waters in fields and canals, with a resulting adverse impact on riparian values and wetlands?
18. Is it not true that if in a conservation effort riparian areas and wetlands are preserved, only modest amounts of water can be freed up largely as a result of reducing evaporation?
19. Is it not true that conservation efforts adversely affect deep percolation, and therefore return flows, which are relied upon by downstream irrigators, and to satisfy certain of the water rights awarded to the Southern Ute Tribe in the 1991 Consent Decree?
20. Is it not true that in 1996 (a dry year) irrigators with Lemon Reservoir contracts only received 70% of their contract supply?
21. In light of questions 3 above, is it not true that for the ALP proponents to secure a new water supply from Lemon Reservoir, existing contracts to deliver water must be voluntarily relinquished?
VALLECITO RESERVOIR.
22. Is it not true that any water conservation by irrigators relying on yields out of Vallecito will likely create the same return flow, wetlands, and aquifer reliance problems described above at Lemon?
23. Is it not true that given the existing irrigation of lands on the Pine River below Vallecito that any additional average yield that might be developed would most likely utilize the existing canal facilities to transfer Pine water into the Florida or require some new pipeline facilities - both of which would result in limited additional water supplies for either Durango or New Mexico M&I demands?
24. Is it not true that any additional Vallecito yield thus utilized would adversely aggravate the current endangered species challenges taking place at the Navajo Reservoir?
25. Is it not true that the Southern Ute Indian Tribe is entitled to 1/6 of the yield of Vallecito Reservoir, as well as 181.7 cfs of direct flow from the Pine River with an 1868 priority?
26. In light of questions 4 above, is it not true that for the ALP proponents to secure a new water supply from Vallecito Reservoir, existing contracts to deliver water must be voluntarily relinquished?
NAVAJO RESERVOIR.
27. Is it not true that the current FWS hydrologic projections at Navajo (which contemplate 110,000 acre/feet San Juan Chama diversion, continuing USBR New Mexico M&I and agricultural contracts of less than 100,000 acre/feet, and a potential Navajo irrigation project claim to a diversion of 374,000 acre/feet or more) result in Navajo Reservoir releases acceptable to protect endangered species, only 34% of the time?
28. Given these hydrologic projections, is it not true that the only available yield at Navajo Reservoir (which could be in excess of 100,000 acre/feet) would exist only if the FWS were to abandon its recovery program?
29. Is it not true that any effort to utilize yield from the Navajo Reservoir is likely to exacerbate problems associated with resolving Navajo Nation claims to San Juan River water?
30. In light of questions 3 above, is it not true that for the ALP proponents to secure a new water supply from Navajo Reservoir, existing contracts to deliver water must be voluntarily relinquished?
GENERAL.
31. Is it not true that any new storage capacity at these reservoirs would involve increasing the height of the facility, which is the most expensive component of a reservoir, would capture runoff to supply the 1 in 5 to 1 in 10 dry year requirement, and would involve an exercise because of its expense very rarely undertaken in the West?
32. Given the expense and difficulty of new structures, and given the modest results of conservation practices which preserve riparian values and wetlands, is it not true that buying out existing water supply contracts from the Reclamation reservoirs is the only alternative which is capable of freeing up a significant water supply?
33. Is it not true that the towns of Aztec, Bloomfield and Farmington already have adopted water conservation plans, as reflected in the Engineering Report prepared by Thomas C. Turney, January 1995, in support of applications to divert ALP contract water?
34. Is it not true that the Engineering Report states that each of the towns is near or below the national average (123 gpcd) for daily water usage? (Aztec, 88 gpcd, residential only; Bloomfield, 108, residential, commercial and parks; and Farmington, 126, residential.)
35. Is it not true that according to the Engineering Report, almost all the rural communities in San Juan County, New Mexico, already use less than half the national average of water daily? (Blanco, 29 gpcd; Flora Vista, 75; Lee Acres, 58; Lower Valley, 102; Navajo Dam, 21; North Heights, 58; North Star and Riverside, 57; Southside, 30; Upper La Plata, 67; West Hammond, 60.)
36. Is it not true that, based on the treated water supply, the City of Durango uses only 180 qpcd, according to the 1993 water Supply Feasibility Study for the City of Durango, and has a water conservation plan in place?
37. Is it not true that the impacts of conservation are accounted for in the water demand projections for entities in San Juan county used in the Engineering Report, which show that the entities will fully utilize the ALP water and more in less than 40 years?
38. Is it not true that New Mexico water permits and Colorado water decrees issued to water rights users including irrigators, set the conditions for use and conservation, and that those conditions cannot be changed easily, if at all?
39. Is it not true that the use of sprinkler irrigation instead of flood irrigation does not decrease the crop's consumptive use of water?
40. Is it not true that for all ALP proponent water rights, the yield of ALP water rights at the diversion of the Animas River without a reservoir results in a significantly reduced average supply of water and in a dry year (like 1996) in very little water at all?
Group 2
QUESTIONS RELATING TO LAND PURCHASES AND CONSOLIDATION.
Introduction. The ALP opponents have suggested that an alternative to the ALP might include land consolidation resulting in reduced water demand and reduced water costs. The ALP proponents submit the following questions for consideration.
41. Is it not true that in light of the 1986 cost Sharing Agreement (eliminating federal responsibility for irrigating Ute Mountain Ute lands west of the La Plata River) that the potential for land consolidation now on the table would relate to the Southern Ute Indian Tribe?
42. Is it not true that any opportunity for land consolidation (and with it water quantity and water cost efficiencies) west of the Florida River would require flew storage either on the Animas or La Plata Rivers?
43. Is it not true that any land acquisition and consolidation in the Piedra, Pine and Florida river systems would involve Tribes replacing present non-Indian irrigators, which presumably could only be done on the basis of voluntary sales?
Group 3
QUESTIONS RELATING TO WATER MARKETING AND POWER REVENUES.
Introduction. The ALP opponents have suggested that as an alternative to the ALP, the Tribes be provided with a revenue stream to be used for Reservation economic development. Based on our knowledge of applicable water marketing and public power laws and principles, the ALP proponents submit for consideration the following questions.
44. Is it not true that significant water marketing would necessarily require a storage facility, to assure a reliable delivery of water? For example, in 1996 every river in the San Juan River Basin was on a "call?"
45. Is it not true that under the Law of the River, substantial power revenues are allocated to the construction of the ALP and that the 1986 Settlement Agreement and Public Law 100-585 carry forth and preserve that allocation of power for the benefit of Colorado and New Mexico irrigators?
46. Is it not true that under the terms of Public Law 100-585 any water marketing by the Tribes would have to comply with the Law of the River, which at the present time prohibits inter-basin transactions?
47. Is it not true that in the Upper Basin, power revenues may only be utilized to repay power components of facilities and assist irrigators beyond their capacity to repay?
48. Is it not true that in the Upper Basin, in contrast to the Lower Basin, each state does not retain discretion as to how power revenues may be utilized?
49. Is it not true that the only example in the Upper Basin of power revenues being utilized for purposes other than project repayment and irrigation support appeared in Public Law 102-575, which authorized power revenues for environmental mitigation in Utah?
50. Is it not true that in order to provide power revenue streams to the two Tribes in lieu of ALP water supplies, congressional approval must be obtained, and approval must be obtained from other parties who have a stake in the power revenues?
51. Is it not true that the required congressional approval must be secured over the likely objections of the public power community -- which includes both current recipients of project power, and municipal recipients of preferential power?
52. Is it not true that the value of tribal water at ALP depends in principal part upon the calculation of the Tribes final USBR repayment obligations?
53. Is it not true that options to generate a cash flow from power revenue or water marketing do not provide benefits to the ALP non-Indian proponents?
54. Assuming for the sake of argument that the Tribes were to modify their position and agree to a revenue stream rather than a reliable water supply from ALP, is it not true that such a plan would require (i) a new settlement agreement, (ii) modification of the current consent decrees, (iii) approval of the Secretary of the Interior, and (iv) federal legislation modifying the settlement act and applicable portions of the Law of the River?
State of Colorado
The following questions are raised with respect to the eleven alternatives selected for further study at the December 3, 1996 meeting in Farmington, New Mexico. These questions are provided in addition to those that would be raised as a result of applying Colorado's screening criteria submitted earlier in this process to these eleven alternatives.
Group 1
(1) Use of existing federal facilities
Use existing data to conduct a study of all existing federal reservoirs in the San Juan Basin and the Dolores Project to determine their ability to meet ALP needs or tribal needs in general. Inventory water contracts.
The following questions would be applicable to each structure.
1. Inventory: active capacity, inactive capacity, existing contracts, amount contracted for, how much water is being used under each contract, active capacity uncontracted, inactive capacity that could be utilized, what would be required to utilize the inactive capacity identified, operational constraints (minimum stream flows, minimum releases, flood control operation constraints, recreational pool levels, etc.), repayment obligations (amount repaid, amount remaining to repaid, entities making the payments, etc.) for each federal reservoir.
2. Can repayment contracts and water service contracts be developed or changed?
3. What are the impacts of changing the water use on return flow patterns, wetlands and other environmental features?
4. What are the impacts of changing the water use patterns on existing water users?
5. Will the change in use and\or place require water court approval?
6. Would water be delivered across state lines under any alternative? If so, what issues are raised?
7. Can alternatives meet the same needs, in the same quantities as the original project and settlement agreement? If not are alternatives viable?
8. Can reservoirs be enlarged beyond their existing capacities? Would water be hydrologically available in priority to fill an enlarged reservoir? If so, what are the environmental impacts and construction costs? Would this likely be an acceptable alternative from the structural, water supply, environmental and political standpoint?
9. With respect to the water right decrees entered on behalf of the Tribes on other streams in the San Juan Basin, will the decrees have to be reopened in order to implement any alternative in that basin?
10. Can identified water provide service to tribal lands for tribal uses, or for identified non-Indian uses?
11. With respect to the Dolores Project, would additional development further adversely impact the water quality in Navajo Wash and McElmo Creek?
12. With respect to the Dolores Project, what would the increased pumping from McPhee cost, and who would pay?
13. With respect to the Dolores Project, what would be the impacts on flat water recreation at McPhee and on instream flows in the Dolores River downstream from the increased pumping?
14. With respect to Vallecito, the Southern Ute Tribe already owns the number 1 water right priority in the Pine River basin and one-sixth of the reservoir. These claims were litigated in 1904, will we need to reopen the original case to accomplish any suggested additional uses by the Tribe in this basin?
15. With respect to Lemon Reservoir, can any additional yield be developed without enlarging the reservoir, as presently the reservoir does not develop a full supply?
16. With respect to Lemon Reservoir, what is the cost of transporting water to the Durango pipeline already in place. Would the pipeline have to be enlarged? Is it feasible to enlarge the pipeline with the limited increase in potential water yield?
17. With respect to Jackson Reservoir, can any additional yield be developed without enlarging the reservoir, as presently the reservoir does not develop a full supply?
(53) Use of existing federal facilities
Evaluate M&I demands and determine if there is not a more efficient way to satisfy them, such as delivering water from Navajo to the Bloomfield, Farmington, Shiprock area.
Need to answer the same general questions as in (1) above.
18. Can water from Navajo Reservoir be delivered to the communities distribution and treatment system by gravity or without any net increase in cost to the user?
(54) Use of existing federal facilities
Evaluate Tribal demands and determine if there is not a more efficient way to satisfy them, such as delivering water from Navajo to the reservations.
Need to answer the same general questions as in (1) above.
19. Can water from Navajo Reservoir be delivered to the Tribes distribution and treatment systems by gravity or without any net increase in cost to the user?
20. Would water be delivered across state lines under any alternative? If so, what issues are raised?
(10) Use of existing federal facilities
Implement water conservation and efficiency measures throughout the project area. Develop a best management practices list. Investigate a program to remove Tamarisk and Russian Olive to provide streambank restoration and water salvage. See Central Utah Project Completion Act for activities in this area.
21. How do we pay for water conservation practices and related programs? How do those programs and practices impact project yield, repayment and the environment?
22. What are the areas, costs, yields of the streambank restoration program? Are the lands privately or publicly held? Who benefits from the restoration activities and yields?
23. How will these water conservation programs and practices affect water rights? Will they expand or reduce the water right? Will they actually increase the available supply or just change the timing of return flows? Are we taking water away from on party simply to give it to another?
(48) Use of existing federal facilities
Use land purchases and exchanges to block together Indian and non-Indian lands.
24. How are the lands paid for? Are land purchases a federal, state, BIA or local cost? Should they be a project cost?
25. Can the Ute Mountain Utes own or hold lands on the Southern Ute Reservation for their use?
26. How will this alternative impact the allocations of project water under the settlement agreement?
27. How does this alternative impact the settlement agreement and cost share agreement?
28. Can this alternative be implemented on a willing seller basis?
29. How and under what authority can a land bank of this nature be established?
30. Would landowners accept cash in lieu of water service (conservation easements)?
Group 2
(23) Revenue Stream for Tribes
Develop a multi-source revenue stream for the Tribes and provide land and water acquisition opportunities. Estimate value of all resources that would be used by Tribes in ALP.
31. What happens to the $60 million already contributed to the tribal development funds? Would these funds have to be repaid?
(45) Use CRSP power revenues in alternative fashion
Seek Congressional Legislation to expand the uses of CRSP power revenues, including specifically environmental mitigation.
32. Could CRSP power revenues be redirected to achieve environmental mitigation in a manner similar to that done for the Central Utah Project Completion Act?
33. Could CRSP power revenues be redirected to reduce M&I costs if it would help achieve federal goals?
34. How much CRSP power revenue is available?
35. What is the potential cost of other uses of CRSP funds?
36. What is the impact on the existing financing structure for the project?
37. How would such legislation be "scored" for federal budget purposes?
Group 3
(64) Modify Phase I of ALP
Reduce project size as outlined by proponents.
38. Would the proposed reductions be lands that could eliminate the need to construct the Dry Side Canal pump stations and allow the use of gravity flow to build the pressure for sprinklers on the remaining lands? Alternatively, could irrigators afford to construct the pump stations if they were assured access to CRSP power?
(43) Modify Phase I of ALP
Look for cost savings by having a team of engineers and experienced consultants review designs to determine if there are measures, such as construction management, construction techniques or other materials that might reduce costs without sacrificing the structural integrity of the project or increasing O&M.
39. Can a construction management approach similar to that used to build the Wolford Mountain Project be employed for the ALP?
40. Are there less costly designs and materials that can be employed?
41. Can partnerships between federal, state, and local governments, including the Tribes, be developed that well help reduce the federal overhead and costs?
42. Can some agricultural lands be eliminated so that all pump stations on the Dryside are eliminated and gravity is used to develop all the pressure for sprinkler systems? Alternatively, are the farmers interested in developing the Dry Side pumps?
43. Can pumping from the Animas be done during off peak hours in a manner that has less environmental impact (i.e. duplicates diurnal fluctuations during runoff)?
44. Are there any potential hydroelectric opportunities or pump-storage opportunities on the project? Have they been investigated and found to be infeasible?
45. Are there opportunities for other federal agencies or programs like ASCS or NRCS to participate in project development that would reduce the overall project cost?
(48) Modify Phase I of ALP
Block up lands for the Tribes to reduce project size.
(65) Phase I of ALP
Build Phase I as presently configured.
46. Does eliminating Phase II adversely impact the cost share agreement? If so, is the federal government willing to accept that modification of the cost share agreement without additional compensation?
47. If the alternatives suggested above are investigated and found infeasible when compared to the current project configuration would the opponents at the table agree to support the project and withdraw the pending lawsuits?
48. Redirection of CRSP revenues may require elimination or alternative funding for non-Indian irrigation. How much revenue could be made available from other sources?
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Thank you for the opportunity to review the priority options identified at our December 3, 1996 meeting, and to submit any questions the Environmental Protection Agency might have concerning the options.
Because of the very brief nature of the description of each option, many of the questions we have may be answered simply by a more complete discussion of each option. It is our understanding that the Bureau of Reclamation will provide much of this additional factual information in their submission. After review of that information and after discussion at our next meeting, we believe any questions remaining unanswered will be identified.
In determining whether an option should be carried over to the next step in the evaluation process we believe it would be helpful to have answers to the following questions:
1. Are there any significant adverse environmental impacts? For example:
A) how many acres and what type of wetlands or other ecologically valuable lands will be affected?
B) will endangered species be affected?
C) what are the potential water quality impacts?
D) how are instrearn flows and reservoir levels affected? How will this affect aquatic life and recreational resources?
2. Are there any potential mitigation measures that could be used to reduce adverse environmental impacts? Will there be binding commitments that will ensure that these mitigation measures will be implemented?
3. Will the public have a full and robust opportunity to review the impacts?
4. What amounts of water will be delivered, where will it be delivered, and how will it be used?
5. To what degree is the option consistent with the amounts of water allocated to the Ute
Indian Tribes as reflected in the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of
1988?
With answers to these general questions, we believe the teams will be in a better position to decide which options need to be explored in more detail.
< Click for a
printer friendly version
of this article. >
Copyright © 1997-2006 A-LP Central. Unauthorized duplication is a violation of applicable laws. All rights expressly reserved.
