My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00054 (2)
CWCB
>
Chatfield Mitigation
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
BOARD00054 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:43:45 PM
Creation date
2/20/2007 11:04:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
11/13/2006
Description
CWCB Director's Report
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
90
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 />All of the federal legislation is pending, and no action is expected until after the November elections. <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />So far, the Southeastern District, Lower Ark and water users have jointly paid about $500,000 for studies <br />of the conduit. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />SE Water District Ponders Impact of Projects on Flows: At its meeting in September, the <br />Southeastern Colorado Water Conservation District reviewed data provided by Pat Edelmann, head of the <br />local U.S. Geological Survey in Pueblo. <br /> <br />Edelmann stated that after construction, Pueblo Dam flows increased 4.4 percent as measured at the <br />A vondale gauge. He also stated that dozens of other water storage projects, pipelines, more <br />transmountain diversions, exchanges and changes of use make the flow picture complex. Volume ranged <br />from less than 200,000 acre-feet in 2002, to closer to 1 million acre-feet several years, USGS data <br />showed. <br /> <br />The spikes have occurred more frequently since Pueblo Dam was completed and mountain dams <br />enlarged, but Edelmann isn't sure that has happened because of manmade features on the river or natural <br />conditions. Edelmann said getting at the specific impacts would require more intense study. <br />Southeastern Executive Director Jim Broderick said the numbers indicate the need for more study of the <br />Arkansas River to understand how it is changing. <br /> <br />Water District Unveils Future Plans: At its regular October meeting, the Upper Arkansas Water <br />Conservancy District unveiled its priorities for the future. Its global augmentation plan tops the list. <br /> <br />The global augmentation plan is one of 17 items on the district's list of priorities, along with buying and <br />enlarging Trout Creek Reservoir near Johnson Village, implementing an augmentation plan in Custer <br />County, agreeing on a comprehensive water management plan with the Town of Buena Vista and <br />improving North Fork, Boss Lake and O'Haver reservoirs. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The global augmentation plan, filed in water court as 06CW32, would maximize the district's use of all of <br />its water rights. Instead of the current requirement that all water depleted in one basin be replaced with <br />water from that basin, the global plan would make all district water rights available for augmentation in <br />all basins. <br /> <br />The City ofSalida, Town ofPoncha Springs, Town of Buena Vista and Chaffee County are all objectors <br />in the case. <br /> <br />Ideas on Refilling Palmer Lake: On Nov 7, residents of Palmer Lake will vote on building a $450,000 <br />pipeline from a capped town well to the lake, using water from the Denver aquifer to raise dwindling lake <br />levels. <br /> <br />Lack of rain has caused lake levels to drop during the past few years. In 2005, the volunteer Awake the <br />Lake Committee spent $19,000 to pump in well water, raising the lake to one-third capacity, but the water <br />later receded. <br /> <br />The estimated 3,600-foot pipeline would stretch to the lake from an unused well that cost the town about <br />$290,000 to drill. The town capped the well, because it produces only 60 gallons a minute and was <br />considered not producing enough water to connect it to the town's water system. <br /> <br />If the issue passes, the project would add an estimated 2.477 mills per year to the town's property tax rate <br />for the next 10 years. Some residents think the money could be better used trying to obtain storage rights <br />for water flowing from reservoirs near town, and worry that the well could go dry. Other residents say <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.