Laserfiche WebLink
<br />o <br />o <br />c~'"' <br />'" <br />N <br />N <br /> <br />In addition to supplying water to Dillon Reservoir by pumping from Green Mountain <br /> <br /> <br />Reservoir, the water exchange concept would allow water to be retained in Dillon Reservoir that <br /> <br /> <br />under current water rights priorities must be released to Green Mountain Reservoir. It should be <br /> <br /> <br />noted that the estimated average annual project yields differ from the firm yields expected from the <br /> <br />portion of the Green Mountain Reservoir storage made available ,for the exchange. This is due to a <br /> <br />combined effect of the variation in the diversion requirement of Roberts Tunnel from year to year, <br /> <br />the limited conveyance capacities, and the minimum flow release requirements (assumed to be 60 <br /> <br />cfs In this Study) from Green Mountain Reservoir. The Unit Cost of Water in Table S.8 is the average <br /> <br />Total Cost Per Year divided by the Exchange Project Yield. It provides a relative cost comparison of <br /> <br /> <br />an acre-foot of water among the Exchange Project alternatives. <br /> <br />;'",'1 <br />i <br /> <br />"'1 <br />j <br /> <br />< ", <br /> <br />PROJECT DEVELOPMENT <br /> <br />This report summarizes the results of a 21-month study which has 'provided reconnaissance- <br /> <br /> <br />level engineering and hydrology information on two conceptual projects: Joint-Use Reservoir and <br /> <br />the Green Mountain Exchange. For the projects designated, hydrological, geotechnical and <br /> <br /> <br />preliminary engineering design studies have been carried out which permit comparisons among <br /> <br />alternatives based on an approximately uniform level of investigation. The development schedule <br /> <br />for each of the alternatives addressed in this Study would require a series of additional steps <br /> <br />including selection of preferred alternatives, feasibility and site-specific environmental studies, <br /> <br />regulatory compliance, financing, design and construction and definition. of institutional <br /> <br />arrangements for project implementation. Neither the Colorado River Water Conservation District <br /> <br /> <br />nor the Denver Water Board has made any decision with respect to the future of these projects. <br /> <br />.'A <br /> <br />1 <br />.d <br /> <br />A minimum of six additional years from the decision to proceed would be a reasonable <br /> <br /> <br />projection of the time needed before any of the Joint-Use Reservoir projects would be completed. A <br /> <br /> <br />minimum of 14 years is a reasonable projection for any of the Green Mountain Exchange Project <br /> <br /> <br />alternatives. However, resolution of the various institutional constraints could substantially increase <br /> <br />the time required. Recognizing that this Study has covered only a limited number of the facets <br /> <br />involved in selection of projects for construction, no ranking or preference has been made. In <br /> <br /> <br />accordance with the scope of work, water yields and estimated costs for alternatives have been <br /> <br />derived and presented for consideration in the next level of implementation of these projects. <br /> <br />" <br />, <br />.:1 <br /> <br />--I <br /> <br />22 <br /> <br />.\ <br />