My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP10711
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
10001-10999
>
WSP10711
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 3:14:24 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 4:28:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8240.200.48.A
Description
Wolford Mountain
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
1/1/1992
Title
Wolford Mountain News Articles
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
News Article/Press Release
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Water sW"ap options considered <br /> <br /> <br />_McGregor <br />Daily Sentinel <br /> <br />1/~ '12, <br /> <br />Mesa County commissioners say if Denver <br />wants to talk deals on water. then Mesa Coun- <br />ty wants to put highway improvements and <br />airport landing fees on the table. too, <br />The talks center on solving water supply <br />problems for Denver. Summit and Grand <br />counties by having Denver come up with cash <br />to pay for the Western Slope's new $47 mil- <br />lion reservoir near Kremmling, called Wol- <br />ford Mountain. <br />"Our feeling is the water being talked <br />about is of no real benefit to Mesa County," <br />said Commissioner Jim Spebar, <br />"If tbis isn't a water-for-water deal, tben <br />perbaps tbere are some other things Denver <br /> <br />~" <br /> <br />""-:::~;:':~::: <br /> <br />:.:.....:...;'.:,y.:... <br />'" ,-- .....".... <br /> <br /> <br />-= <br /> <br />Roben GlIrclalOaHy Sentinel <br /> <br />can belp us witb, like four-laning U.S. Higb- <br />way 6&50 to Delta, or seeing that landing fees <br />for the new airport don't further raise the <br /> <br />'.,':'-:; <br /> <br />costs of flying to Denver." he said. <br />Spehar's response comes at the request of <br />Greg Hoskin, a Grand Junction attorney and <br />Mesa County representative on the Colorado <br />River Water Conservation District board, <br />The board, which is dealing with Denver on <br />the issue, meets next week, and Hoskin want- <br />ed to plumb the commissioners' opinions be- <br />fore then, <br /> <br />One of the strings attached to Denver's of. <br />fer is that it would gain a permanent right to <br />40 percent ofthe water in the new reservoir. <br />Denver would use the water by exchange, <br />releasing it from Wolford Mountain to make <br />up for increased transmountain diversions <br />from Dillon Reservoir, <br />Hoskin said the offer presents a dilemma, <br /> <br />See Water, page 5A <br /> <br />Water <br /> <br />From Page One <br /> <br />"Is it better for the Western <br />Slope to own 60 percent of some- <br />thing with wet water in it, or 100 <br />percent of sometbing that's just on <br />paper?" he asked. <br />In 1986, ,a,,'historic deal settling <br />years of legaibattles between Den- <br />ver and the river district called for <br />Denver to help pay for Wolford <br />Mountain and use 40 percent of its <br />water for 25 years. <br />Then Denver's proposed Two <br />Forks Reservoir was killed by tbe <br />federal governmenl , <br />Now, Denver says it needs tbe <br />Wolford Mountain water perma- <br />nently, and it's willing to sweeten <br />tbe deal by $12 million, covering <br />all but $6 million of the reservoir's <br />total cost <br />Mesa County Attorney Lyle De- <br />chant said the commissioners "feel <br />we should go ahead and bargain <br />with Denver." <br />But Dechant said Western Slope <br />negotiators should also be very <br />clear about what each side gets, <br />For example. he's concerned <br /> <br />that,adual operating procedures <br />could mean that Denver will end <br />up with more than 40 percent of <br />the water. ,.,. '.w.' ' <br />"They could be selling us, the <br />sleeves out of a vest,'-.fhe said; <br />But Hoskin said, he senses a re- <br />luctance among the commissioners <br />to deal with Denver. <br />And for his own opinion, he said. <br />"Denver is not making as good a <br />deal for the Western Slope as they <br />could. This water is costing them <br />about $3,700 an acre-foot, hui a lot <br />of people think Denver, could af. <br />ford to pay from $5,000 to $6.000 an <br />acre.foot" <br /> <br />An acre-foot equals 325,851 gal- <br />lons and is the water'used in a year <br />by four to five people. <br />But Hoskin also is feeling pres- <br />sure from the Mesa County Water <br />Association, <br /> <br />Association vice president Joe <br />Skinner argued in a July 2 letter <br />the reservoir was intended to com- <br />pensate the Western Slope for <br />transmountain diversions already <br />operating, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.