Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001554 <br /> <br />Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences <br /> <br />right is owned by the City of Grand Junction, 20 cfs by the Clifton Water District and 20 cfs by <br />the Water Development Company, The decree for this right lists five alternate points of <br />diversion, with the Price-Stubb Diversion Dam being one of the decreed points. Approximately <br />19 cfs of this right has been made absolute6. The right was perfected by pumping from the <br />Colorado River at the Clifton Water District Treatment Plant approximately 6 miles downstream <br />from the Price-Stubb Diversion Dam. No water has been diverted at the Price-Stubb Diversion <br />Dam under this water right. <br /> <br />Impacts <br /> <br />No Action: The No Action alternative would have no effect on these water rights. The <br />opportunity to use PID' s power right to lift irrigation water if the Government Highline Canal <br />was unable to make deliveries would continue. The probability of using the Price-Stubb <br />Diversion Dam to provide an emergency irrigation water supply is very remote. Pumping and <br />conveyance facilities to support this use no longer exist, and it would require a substantial <br />amount of time and money to reestablish them. Likewise, the opportunity to use the Price-Stubb <br />Diversion Dam as a forebay to pump domestic, municipal and industrial water would continue. <br />However, the probability of using this water right at this location is remote, since the City of <br />Grand Junction and the Clifton Water District do not have any distribution systems in this area. <br />The Jacobson Hydro No.1 Project could also use the Price-Stubb Diversion Dam to provide a <br />forebay for hydropower generation under this alternative. <br /> <br />Fish Ladder with Hydropower Plant: This alternative would have the same effect on <br />these water rights as the No Action alternative. Only about 1,000 cfs of the 2,100 cfs water right <br />associated with the Jacobson Hydro No.1 Project would be needed under the amended FERC <br />license. <br /> <br />Fish Ladder without Hydropower Plant: This alternative would have the same effect <br />on these water rights as the No Action alternative, but the 2,100 cfs hydropower water right could <br />be subject to abandonment. <br /> <br />Dam Removal: The Dam Removal alternative would preclude PID from pursuing <br />development of a backup irrigation water system or hydropower facility at the dam. <br />Consequently, PID opposes removal of the dam. As a co-owner of the dam, PID can prohibit the <br />partial dam removal alternative. Reclamation believes dam removal is a viable option, and has <br />therefore retained it as an alternative in this Draft EA. <br /> <br />This alternative would also preclude using the dam as a forebay to pump domestic, municipal <br />and industrial water. The owners of this right have said that this impact would not affect their <br /> <br />6 Absolute: In Colorado, a conditional water right owner must prove diligence in completing work <br />necessary to apply the water to a beneficial use before the water court makes the water right absolute (also telmed <br />perfected). <br /> <br />22 <br />