My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Summary of Basin Roundtable Task Order Request
CWCB
>
IBCC Process Program Material
>
Backfile
>
Summary of Basin Roundtable Task Order Request
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/15/2009 6:01:25 PM
Creation date
7/25/2007 2:21:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
IBCC Process Program Material
Title
Summary of Basin Roundtable Task Order Requests
Date
3/15/2007
IBCC - Doc Type
Needs Assessment & Technical Support
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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 />City, Cedaredge, Colby, etc.), North Fork (Hotchkiss, Paonia, Rodgers Mesa, <br />Bone Mesa, Lazear, etc.), Smith Fork (Crawford), Upper Gunnison (Mt. Crested <br />Butte, Pitkin, etc.) should be reviewed for accuracy. The limitations of the <br />existing data are also related to the limitations of the data records produced and <br />maintained by these small municipalities which are typically short-staffed and <br />budget-limited. In addition, local water planning can be compromised by the <br />complexity of Colorado water law. Recent experience has indicated that the <br />water rights portfolios of some small municipalities may have incompatible uses <br />(agricultural vs. domestic) and/ or may not provide the long term domestic water <br />supply security as was believed (e.g., Cedaredge, Orchard City, Hotchkiss). <br />Limitations on supply should be investigated based upon an analysis of <br />historical minimum supply conditions (e.g., during the drought of 2002 - 2004). <br /> <br />To review the accuracy of the data, the Consultant will develop a list of <br />communities to contact and will finalize this list with the Gunnison Basin needs <br />assessment subcommittee. After finalizing the list of communities the Consultant <br />will contact the communities to gather this information. <br /> <br />Deliverable: Draft a1/d fi1/al tecl11/ical11lelllOra1/du11ls describi1/g tl1e results of tl1e <br />i1/for11latio1/ fr011l tl1e s11laller C011l11lU1/ i ties, <br /> <br />2) Basin-wide - Review and refine the estimate of current and future rural <br />domestic demands and supply in the Gunnison Basin. <br /> <br />The Consultant will investigate many areas of the Gunnison Basin with respect <br />to rural domestic water demand and most likely under represented these water <br />demands. In particular, it is believed that many headwaters areas (including, but <br />not limited to, Upper Gunnison sub-basins of Ohio Creek, Tomichi Creek, <br />Cebolla Creek, and Lake Fork, the North Fork sub-basins of Anthracite, <br />Hubbard, Muddy, Terror, Leroux, Smith Fork, and Minnesota Creek, the Upper <br />Uncompahgre sub-basins of Dallas and Cow Creeks, and sub-basins of Surface <br />Creek) are not accurately depicted with respect to these demands. In most cases, <br />rural users have access to a physical supply of water through wells or small <br />creeks. However, now that the Gunnison River Basin has been deemed over- <br />appropriated by the Division of Water Resources, many users will need to <br />develop sources of augmentation to provide legal protection against downstream <br />senior water rights year-round. Although the current rural demand for <br />augmentation water is estimated to be relatively small, there are many domestic <br />water users that are at risk of being out of priority and curtailed. In addition, an <br />assessment is needed to quantify the future demand for augmentation water <br />storage in headwaters areas as growth pressures continue and more rural <br />subdivisions are developed in the basin. Limitations on supply should be <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.