Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,~\ <br />~ W <br />0,e ~ <br />'l~ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />GVWM Flow Protection Plan <br /> <br />December 19, 1994 <br />4:02pm <br /> <br />DRAFr <br /> <br />significantly more sophisticated system improvements, automation, and operation than are <br />currently planned in this study. Due to the concept of customary and reasonable irrigation <br />practices, this is considered a mis-match for the availability factor. At some date in the future, <br />when customary and reasonable practices include irrigation systems improved to the levels <br />anticipated in this study, it may be reasonable to analyze further advances in canal automation <br />within the Grand Valley Project. <br /> <br />Late summer and early fall - after the peak irrigation season, the supply in the river <br />is low and there is the greatest possibility to conserve water. This is the period of diminished <br />river supply when the potential for the Cameo Call to curtail upstream junior diverters is most <br />likely. A good match for the need factor. Demand within the irrigation system begins to fall <br />and by early to mid-September 3IiIl may be in the 200 to 250 cfs range. To maintain the water <br />surface elevation to the level necessary to deliver water to some of the high lands adjacent to <br />the canal a minimum diversion of about 400 to 450 cfs is required. Therefore, through the <br />installation of canal water surface control devices (check structures) and the associated <br />automation, there is the potential to reduce diversions up to 150 to 200 cfs to more closely <br />follow demand. The most probable solution involves installation of five to six automated check <br />structures to reduce peak river diversions. These improvements may be associated with the <br />development of small volumes (300-600 acre-feet) of in-system storage that could be drawn from ~'l> <br />to meet peak demands and maintain a lower river diversion. Various configurations and . <br />combinations of these structural and non-structural components will be analyzed and screened. \ <br /> <br /> <br />~~~l/ <br />,X X- Jl <br />/. 'to <br />There appears to be a "catch 22" whenever efforts are made to conserve, save or salvage water. · A. Jc.T- ~ I( <br />If a diverter is following "reasonable and customary" practices within their irrigation system, ')' II ~v ~ ~:'" <br />it is difficult to declare that they are being wasteful. However, if they want to modernize their ~l \ .~y <br />system beyond those standards, they are technically not entitle,<! to the co~erved water unless -.l \1' {<. \.i~ <br />it can be demonstrated that water can hLconserved and Ji\ft"fo existing"Oi1 new uses(without . ~ (el eI' <br />injury to other water userS) N~. '!f'~en water is conserved, downstream wat~r users \" .\~ <br />benefit. So if water is conserved, the downstream users could claim injury if the conserved \ ~ o-~ <br />water was applied to an expanded or new consumptive use. However, in the ca~e Cameo <br />group, there are no downstream users that experience a supply shortage. This .does not <br />help motivate diverters to modernize in light of the usually significant cost of doing so and the <br />legal costs associated with proving no injury. <br /> <br />Need for Flow Protection <br /> <br />But what happens if another person or organization is willing to pay for modernization? The <br />law doesn't change, so how can conserved water be protected and used? As part of the Grand <br /> <br />16 <br />