Laserfiche WebLink
<br />000721 <br /> <br />. Bypassed diversions to storage would not be administered toward a paper fill of the <br />reservoir, but would be administered in Division 5 only, and under the PBO, as a <br />regulatory bypass that would not count against the fill of the reservoir. <br /> <br />These matters were discussed with the State Engineer a ames Lochhead personal communication with <br />Hal Simpson, February 15, 2000) with the following outcome: <br /> <br />. These three potential administration policies could be further analyzed and included in <br />modeling studies. The effect of change in administration and using a junior refill right <br />could be modeled by assigning a junior priority date to the particular facility one day <br />junior to the applicable storage right. The facility will then continue its fill under that <br />right after the primary storage right has been accounted as "full." The sensitivity <br />analysis will be made by comparing this operation to a model run without the assigned <br />junior priority. <br /> <br />. The various alternatives that involve bypassing diversions to storage could also be <br />modeled with the alternative policies detailed above to determine the effects of the <br />alternative policies on other water rights and facility operations. Where possible, the <br />costs associated with these effects could be estimated. <br /> <br />. The results of these investigations and modeling studies could then be considered <br />further by the State Engineer in developing the administration policy that will be used <br />for bypassed diversions. <br /> <br />This matter of how bypassed diversions to storage will be administered has not been resolved in Phase <br />2. Full resolution of these matters is outside the scope of Phase 2 of the Coordinated Facilities <br />Operations Study. <br /> <br />2.2.2 No Restrictions on Alternatives Investigated <br /> <br />In the Phase 1 investigation, consideration of all alternatives was permitted; no alternatives were <br />summarily eliminated from investigation solely because of stakeholder opposition. <br /> <br />The focus of the alternatives is primarily on the re-operation of water management and storage <br />facilities located within the Upper Colorado River Basin, the inter-related hydropower operations of <br />east and west slope facilities, and the construction of new facilities, in order to determine the feasibility <br />of obtaining water for the endangered fishes from these sources in accordance with the original scope <br />of work for this investigation (Colorado Water Conservation Board, October 2,1998). Improved <br />conveyance facilities and efficiencies were considered with respect to canals, but actual on-farm <br />. practices were not considered as an alternative to be investigated by this study. <br /> <br />P:\Data \GEN\CWCB\19665\Report Phase 2\FinalReport12.02\Finat Draft _ Report(l-03).doc <br /> <br />14 <br />