WSP09648 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

30"') .,),.. Adobe Creek Reservoir: Recreation 1, Aquatic Warm I, Water Supply, Agriculture Thurston Reservoir: Recreation 2, Aquatic Warm 1, Agriculture Great Plains Reservoirs - Nee Sopah and Nee Noshe: Recreation 1, Aquatic Warm I, Water Supply, Agriculture John Martin Reservoir: Recreation I, Aquatic Warm 1, Water Supply, Agriculture Other tributaries of the Arkansas River: Recreation 2, Aquatic Warm 2, Agriculture Adobe Creek Reservoir, Great Plains Reservoirs, and John Martin Reservoirs are also designated High Quality Class 2 waters which subjects permits affecting the waters of those reservoirs to anti- degradation review and special protection under state water quality rules (5 CCR 1002-8 Section 3.2.0) Water quality is a factor in the treatment of Arkansas River water for other uses. The type of treatment required for municipal use depends on the location from which it is diverted. In the Ft. Lyon Canal Treatability Evaluation performed by Richard P. Arber and Associates, the water quality parameters from the Catlin Canal were utilized to develop treatment processes and cost for operation of the water treatment systems. Average concentrations of several water quality parameters exceed drinking water criteria. These parameters include dissolved solids, hardness, sodium, sulfate, iron and manganese. Gross alpha concentrations also exceed the criteria but are regulated only if radium 226 and 228 both exceed their restrictive criteria. Arber reported that uranium m<lY also be regulated at 10 pCiL or approximately 15 p.gL. Since 14 p.gL of uranium was detected uranium was also considered in the development of treatment schemes. Arber noted that data were not available to determine a level of organic compounds and therefore were not considered in the treatment recommendations (Fort Lyon Canal Company n.d.). Arber proposed water treatment processes which include conventional treatment (including flocculation, sedimentation and filtration) softening, and sulfate removal. Ion exchange may be required through reverse osmosis. Arber estimated that total annualized treatment costs range from $142 per acre foot to $547 per acre foot, not including costs for reverse osmosis. The addition of reverse osmosis could increase treatment costs to $1,467 per acre foot or approximately 10 times the cost of conventional treatment. 3.13 Value of Ft. Lvon Shares The estimated value ofFt. Lyon Canal Company shares is developed using two approaches. The first is an analysis to determine the estimated present market value of Ft. Lyon Canal Company shares in agricultural use within the system. To develop this value, 27 land sales were analyzed. Twelve sales included both Ft. Lyon shares and supplemental well irrigation rights. The remaining fifteen sales included the land with Ft. Lyon shares only. A summary of these fifteen sales is presented in Table 3.9. Source data are presented in Table AJ.6 of the Appendix. 3.18