Laserfiche WebLink
<br />4-03CWI08, which the CWCB filed a statement of opposition to protect its NLL water right on Lal(e San <br />Cristobal. <br /> <br />Discussion: <br /> <br />As identified in the major findings in SWSI, supplies are not necessarily where demands are located. If <br />implemented, the location of this storage has the potential to address many important needs in the Lal(e Forl( <br />Gunnison basin. Lal(e San Cristobal is located relatively high in the basin, an important attribute when <br />considering an augmentation source. Development in the Lal(e City area has placed significant pressures on <br />the water supplies in the Lal(e Forl( Gunnison River basin which is lil(ely to continue in the foreseeable <br />future. An upstream augmentation source such as San Cristobel Lal(e would augment out of priority <br />depletions within the Lal(e Forl( basin rather that utilizing downstream sources such as Blue Mesa Reservoir. <br />Among other considerations, the CWCB holds instream flow water rights on the Lal(e Forl( Gunnison River <br />and many of its tributaries which could benefit both directly and indirectly from this project. Some <br />discussions with CWCB Staff have included allocating a portion of the releases to support instream flow <br />water rights in the Lal(e Forl( Gunnison River. <br /> <br />Issues/Additional Needs: <br /> <br />. The applicant needs to address the threshold criteria, especially in regard to potential effects to the <br />CWCB Natural Lal(e Level (NLL) water right. <br /> <br />. Pending resolution/receipt of analysis of the above the applicant should resolve the issues raised in <br />case number 03CWI08, including whether a non-naturallal(e level pool exists above the naturallal(e <br />level. The outcome and logistics of this analysis could substantially change the purpose and outcome <br />of this grant. <br /> <br />. A copy of the 2003 feasibility study referred to in the grant application was not provided. Please <br />submit this information. <br /> <br />. The applicants describe this application as a 'technical analysis' although the application appears to <br />have a structural component associated with outlet structure, please clarify. <br /> <br />. More specific budget breal(down is needed as well as more detail regarding the schedule of activities <br />and l(ey activities are needed. <br /> <br />. In this application, it was stated that the Hinsdale County Road and Bridge Department constructed a <br />rocl( and timber dam at the outlet in the 1950s, yet the water right application in 4-03CWI08 states <br />the improvements occurred on June 1, 1990. Further clarification on this issue is needed. <br /> <br />. It was stated that this feasibility study/analysis will be used in part to support the water rights <br />application in 4-03CWI08. It is important to note that funds can not be used to reimburse past costs <br />or for legal expenses related to the water right application in 4-03CWl 08. <br /> <br />. The current scope of worl( does not appear to include any effort to assess the outlet structure design <br />and costs. Without this information it is unclear how Mr. Slattery can conduct a marl(etable yield <br />analysis (i.e. without l(nowing the capital cost, the rate of repayment and marl(etability, the price of <br />augmentation water can not be determined.) Please clarify. <br /> <br />. The applicant did not identify any TABOR issues; please confirm that this is not an issue. <br /> <br />. Please clarify why this report is provided to the Gunnison Roundtable rather than Hinsdale County <br />and the Upper Gunnison Water Conservancy District. In addition, one tax payer identification <br />number was provided but it appears that this is a co-application however the upper Gunnison appears <br /> <br />2 <br />