WSP08712 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I environmental impacts than any of the other proposed alterna- tives. while Plan D would cause the fewest adverse impacts. The relative ral'!k.ings of the various alternative plans based on magni- tude of impact from the least adverse to the most adverse would be (1) Plan D, (2) Plan B. (3) Plans E. F-1, and F-2, (4) Plans C and F, and (5) Plan A. (4) Water rationing does not appear to be socially feasible at the present time except during dry weather periods when water supplies will be subnormal and water demands will be high; In Section VII, potential mItigating measures are proposed for the Homestake Collection System Extension and discussed under the head ings of the adverse effects which they are designed to alleviate or correct. These measures reflect Federal, State, and local regulations, They emphasize protection of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. prevention of the discharge of undesirable wastes into the watershed, compliance with established noise, air, and water quality standards. maintenance of aesthetic values. and recognition of the current management direction established by the USFS, (5) It appears highly unlikely that water recycling techniques will be perfected and/or socially acceptable soon enough that recycled water could replace the potable water yield expected from the Homestake Collection System Extension; (6) Development of auxiliary sources of water supply (purchase of existing water rights in vicinity of Cities, procurement of direct flow rights, development of additional ground water sources. etc.) would provide only interim solutions to the water supply problems of the Cities. Projected growth rates of the two Cities indicate that additional Homestake water will be needed by the early 1980's to satisfy water demands; In Section VIII, alternatives to the proposed action are identified and discussed. I n regard to these potential alternatives, the fol- lowing findings were made: (7) Weather modification in the existing Homestake Collection System Area would not provide sufficient additional runoff to satisfy the Cities' future needs. Despite the potential of weather modification for increasing precipitation over a watershed, its use presents legal, social. and economic problems which are largely unsolved. (1) If the proposed action were abandoned. the Cities of Aurora and Colorado Springs would not be able to meet their projected municipal. residential. commercial. and industrial water needs in the 1980's; (2) IL the proposed project was relocated to some other area, ,- ail thec~verse environmental and socio-economic impacts identi- fied l1\lrl!in would be transferred to the new location because none OPthe impacts which would attend the project are unique or peculiar to the Project Area; In Section IX, the relationship between the short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance of long.term producti- vity is discussed, It appears that the proposed action would not be an obstacle to the maintenance of long-term productivity within the Project Area_ The proposed action, by i,selJ. would have relatively minor impacts on stream regimen. land features, and socio-economic considerations outside the Project Area. The Homestake Water Collection System, therefore, would not be an obstacle to long-term productivity within the region; however. open space and water are finite resources which can be ex- hausted. Piecemeal. unilateral water diversion projects in the aggregate can have far-reaching, cumulative environmental and socio-economic consequences, not only for Colorado, but for the entire Westwide region, For this reason, a regional solution to State water problems must ultimately be found. (3) Of all the alternatives to water diversion investigated herein. growth limitation and control would seem to offer the best solution to Colorado's water problems; however. a workable state.wide solution to growth limitation does not appear to be imminent; 9