Laserfiche WebLink
<br />PSOP Negotiations Hit Snag, Other Options Move Forward: The Preferred Storage Options Plan, <br />first advanced in 2001 as a way to meet some of the Arkansas Valley's storage needs, has stalled again, <br />but other projects are now being discussed. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The Preferred Storage Options Plan would enlarge Lake Pueblo capacity by as much as 75,000 acre-feet, <br />possibly by adding metal gates atop the Pueblo Dam. PSOP addressed about 125,000 acre-feet of the <br />total need through Lake Pueblo enlargement, Turquoise enlargement and "reoperations" (now called <br />excess capacity) at Lake Pueblo. Other projects by individual entities were envisioned to soak up the <br />storage gap. PSOP, as proposed in 2001, envisioned setting up to excess capacity accounts of up to <br />50,000 acre-feet and enlargements up to 75,000 acre-feet at Lake Pueblo. <br /> <br />While PSOP has been stalled for five years, other water plans in the valley have been moving forward to <br />increase storage in the Arkansas Valley. <br /> <br />The excess capacity accounts are an example of projects moving ahead outside ofPSOP. This year, <br />Reclamation approved 32,000 acre-feet of "if-and-when" accounts and studied the environmental impacts <br />of storing as much as 80,000 acre-feet annually for the next five years. That figure includes 10,000 acre- <br />feet for Aurora, which would be the first to "spill" its water if reservoirs filled. <br /> <br />Municipal storage is slowly replacing space once more evenly shared with agriculture. <br /> <br />The impact of not enlarging Lake Pueblo mean~ other darn projects could move forward more quickly. <br />Two alternatives below Lake Pueblo are getting serious study: forming lakes from former gravel pits and <br />aquifer storage. The Arkansas Basin Roundtable is actively studying sites for aquifer storage, building on <br />a recent report by the Colorado Geological Survey. Other study options include: <br />. Williams Creek, identified as a site for storage of return flows on Fountain Creek is part of <br />Colorado Springs Utilities' water resource plan. <br /> <br />. Pueblo Board of Water Works is in the process of enlarging Clear Creek, and still could build a <br />reservoir on Tennessee Creek in Lake County. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. Pure Cycle Inc., a Thornton water developer, closed its purchase of High Plains A&M on Aug. <br />31. The company's plan is to move water from a reservoir on the Fort Lyon Canal to new <br />development to the north along the Front Range. High Plains' attempt to do the same thing was <br />rejected by the Colorado Supreme Court because no end user was identified. <br /> <br />. Meanwhile the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District is moving ahead a water bank <br />concept, while the Lower Arkansas Water Conservancy District is trying to create a master lease <br />plan for rotating fallowing. <br /> <br />Alan Hamel, who chairs the Arkansas Basin Roundtable and represents the valley on the state Interbasin <br />Compact Committee, said it is difficult for collaborative projects to move forward, and that if "you hold <br />everything else up until you get all those issues settled, people go on to other things. I think it's important <br />to the future of the valley to have some sort of joint resources planning group." <br /> <br />Arkansas Basin Roundtable Preps for State Water Funds: Three roundtable committees are actively <br />exploring various facets of water activities in the Arkansas Valley. A needs assessment committee is <br />developing an online matrix of water studies in the Arkansas Valley. A water transfers committee is <br />looking at guidelines that would govem future water activities in the valley. A groundwater committee is <br />studying possible sites for underground reservoirs. None of the committees has zeroed in on specific uses <br />for the funds, although the needs assessment group is moving ahead with its plan to categorize valley . <br />water studies. <br /> <br />16 <br />