My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP12760
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
1-1000
>
WSP12760
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:18:00 PM
Creation date
10/12/2007 9:40:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8155.915.A.2
Description
Chaffee County RICD- Objectors/ Others Pre-Hearing Statements / Exhibits
State
CO
Basin
Arkansas
Water Division
2
Date
12/10/1998
Author
Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District
Title
Pre-Hearing Exhibits Tab 4 - GEI Consultants SECWCD/Arkansas River Water and Storage Needs Assessment
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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 />'. <br /> <br />Water and Storage Needs Assessment <br />SECWCD/Assessment Enterprise <br />December 10,1998 <br /> <br />,--- -- --~ - - -~ --~- -~.-~ ~--- - .~- -- ----. --- ~~---- ~ - -- - - - ~- --- - --- <br />L__~~~=-~~:~~~___, Z~~~~i~.!.L~~o~~~~2~~4'.~J; J <br />Other Reported Needs <br /> Pueblo Water Works 20,000 20,000 <br /> Public Service Company 5,000 5,000 <br /> Pueblo West MD 5,500' 5,500 <br /> St. Charles Mesa 3,600 3,600 <br />. Subtotal 34,100 34,100 <br /> , Total 173,100 148,100 <br /> <br />Note: Subtotal.(A) Is the storage n~ed documente~ during the Assessment Project studies. Subtotal <br />(6) Is the storage need studied by entities participating In the Ass~ssment'Project. <br /> <br />Planning for water development to meet District needs should be tentatively based on storage <br />needs for the high forec~ i.e., 173,000 at: As described in Section 8, it is unlikely that a single <br />storage project could provide the entire storage volume. If two (or more) storage projects are <br />implemented, they could be staged, perhaps with the initial project targeted to meet storage <br />requirements under the base forecast. This approach would avoid "overbuilding" in the event <br />that the high forecast does not materialize as currently planned. ,.. <br /> <br />, - <br />Based on inputs gained dming the course of undertaking the Assessment Project, we believe that: <br />. other entitles may be interested in participating iti a storage project. 'One of these entities is-the <br />City of Aurora, 'Y~,ch has water: interests within the Arkansas Basin but is not within the District. <br />Aurora is considering development of apPI:oximately 10,000 af of storage in the Arkansas Basin <br />to help manage its existing water resources. Another potential partner in a storage project is the <br />State of Colorado. mterest by the State of Colorado will be dependent on the results of ongoing <br />studies relative to the Kansas versus Colorado sett1em~nt. ' <br /> <br />Given these considerations, total storage requirements could be greater than 173,,000 af, perhaps <br />up to 200,000 af, or more. <br /> <br />9741IlrmaU\TEXT-A. WPO <br /> <br />6-23 <br /> <br />I GEl Consultants, Inc. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.