Correspondence on Bonneville Unit of Central Utah Project

Page 92

, - An understanding that the water use per acreage could be increased from three acre feet peracre to four acre feet per acre. • .... The Indians support continuation of the Bonneville Unit because they feel that is the best way for them to eventually get their water. When the Deferral Agreement was signed, the replacement water was seen as * coming from the Ute Indian Unit. The Ute TridTan Unit until recently has been a large plan to develop over 700,000 a.f. ofJwater, with the Uinta and Bonneville Basins each getting about half.. The Indians would have received 140,000 a.f. from this total, more than the amount deferred. Since •theJinifc-jtfheo. added to ath&E-ditters-inns jgatMjteglete the"Colorado River by about 300,000 a.f. more than Utah is aljowed •• R ^ f t ^ W p ^ itjs not likely tTaFThT~evlnTuaTTte Indian Unit will look anythinglTke the original concept. Qne~~can only speculate"at this'time about how much theTnHTarTatti^ude toward the Deferral Agreement still reflects the hope of eventually seeing the original Unit become a reality. It may be possible to replace the deferred 60,000 a.f. either by further diversions of streams, with attendant environmental problems, or by replacing the deferral lands with privately-owned land adjacent to the Green River in the Leland Bench area, which can be served by pumping. .Since both methods of meeting the Agreement have unresolved problems, further commitments to the Uinta Basin portions of the Bonneville Unitmust be made carefully. • ... There is no question that the Secretary, both as a party to the Agreement and as Trustee, must fulfill the obligation to replace the deferred water, but it is unclear at this moment how it will be done. In our opinion, this puts the Indians in a precarious. position, because Utah's uncommitted share of the Colorado River is down to about 100,000 a.f. and the demand for oil shale and power plant development already easily exceed that figure. In ouropinion. our obligations under the Indian Deferral Agreement should be,faced belojaB^noxe^CoToradolTTrver^ waJerjs_j^vertpd~to the Bonneville Basin. - T: - -T-T-_. In addition to the above larger question, we must immediately recognize that continuation of the Bonneville Unit while negotiating about stream flows is likely to conflict with the Deferral' Agreement. Any increase in stream flows to satisfy the legitimate concerns of the Forest Service, Utah, and BSFW would be viewed by the Indians as an abrogation of the Agreement because water released for fish flows in the nonirrigation season would' not benefit them. Bureau of"Reclamation believes that any discussion of increased stream flows in Rock Creek will cause the Indians to claim the 60,000 a.f. needed to irrigate the deferred acreage. Bonneville Basin diversion would be cut in half as a result. '4.