OCR Text |
Show Issue raised by: National Wildlife Federation and an individual Response: Utah's entitlement to Colorado River water as computed by the Bureau of Reclamation is equal to 23 percent of the flow at Lees Ferry, Arizona, which amounts to about 1,323? 000 acre- feet annually. This is based on an average annual historical flow of 5,800,000 acre- feet ( 1931- 3- 96U period) and assumes this flow will continue in the future. An accounting for present and committed uses of Utah's share of Colorado River water is presented in Table 1- 2. A total of 1,120,000 acre- feet is presently used or committed. This leaves 203,000 acre- feet of uncommitted water ( exclusive of the allocation the the Kaiparowits Powerplant), part or all of which could be developed by the Ute Indian Unit of the Central Utah Project. The State of Utah151 has made a slightly higher estimate of 1,^- 38,000 acre- feet ( maximum) as the amount of water available; 1,15^, 000 acre- feet as the present and committed water use; and 281+, 000 acre- feet ( exclusive of the Kaiparowits allocation) as being available for development. The goals of the Bonneville Unit would be to serve the established needs of the Unit area in a manner as outlined in Section A. If constructed and operated as proposed, the Bonneville Unit would utilize water tributary to the Colorado River along with other supplies developed locally. Alternatives to this plan are discussed in Section H to afford the decision maker with data necessary to compare the proposed plan with these alternatives. The claim that Utah should not construct Bonneville Unit to develop part of her legal entitlement to Colorado River as a goal is not considered practical. Considering the West's water law of beneficial use as the measure and the limit of the right, it appears that other states could conceivably use water beneficially prior to Utah's use of it and thereby acquire her right. Even though Utah's right in this case is established by interstate compact, the compact could be renegotiated and the allocation of water modified. * Issue 22: The draft environmental statement did not provide a full disclosure of the environmental impacts of the proposed Unit plan, particularly those that would be considered adverse. Issue raised by: Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Bureau of Land Management Forest Service Environmental Protection Agency Bureau of Outdoor Recreation 6H |