WSP12760 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Water and Storage Needs Assessment SECWCDI Assessment Enterprise December 10,1998 Various combinations of these options, and potentially other options,' should be ev~uated in greater detail to identify a, preferred plan and sever~ alternatives for evaluation during compliance with requirements of the National Environmental Policy Aqt (NEP A); 'Storage costs are estimated to range from $150 per af (Turquoise Enlargement) to $3,000 per af (Gravel Lakes, Storage). Depending on how the alternative storage options are combined, to~ costs to develop 173,000 af of additional storage could range from $41 to $199 million. The lower cost is heavily dependent ori whether '1'eoperation" can be technically and legally accomplished or whether all of the storage must be developed in new or enlarged reservoirs. . In summary, municipal water demands, primarily developing in the Fountain Valley area (Colorado Springs, Fountain Security, Widefield, and StratmooroHills) ,of the District, will require development of additional' water storage capacity. Agricultural water supply deficits are ' . expected to occur up to 59,000 af (or more) as municipal demands on Fry-Ark Project water'and other water resources in the Basin increase over time. This means that dedicated storage for the Winter Water Storage Prograni will be inereasingly iI:nportant for, agricultural water users. Coupled with dedicated storage for the Winter Water Program and other potential partners, the storage need for District entitieS is estimated to be 155,000 at: This need will begin to develop over the next 10 to 20 years. Therefore, studies shouid be initiated in the near future to fmther evaluate alternative ~orage options,in terms of technical and environmental performance. Reoperation ofFty-Ark Project storage is likely t(fbef~ii',~p&tant,~leIlletit ~f mioveran water management strategy. Coupled with possibilities f<?f enlarging Project reservoirs, this means that detailed discussions with ~e Bureau ofRe~lamation should be undertaken soon, in order to fully assess the feasibility, costs, NEP A compliance requirements, and institutiona1llegal issues associated with these options. Public Comments: The Assessment Project was conducted with ~ties for public input The SSC meetings were open to the public and three public meetings were held (Buena Vista, , LaJtinta, and Leadville) to present the draft Report. The public expressed concerns about additional water development, particularly in the Upper Basin, in the absence of more-intensive conservation in the municipal sector. Concerns also were expressed' about the environmental and, social impacts of additional water development and the need for more-detailed envir~ental and social impact evaluations. Connnents from the public are acknowledged in the final report for the Assessment Project. These comments will be 'considered during subsequent phases of investigation. Recommendations: Based on studies for the Water and Storage Needs Assessment froject, additional water development will be required to meet the year 2040 needs of District water supply entities. In order to initiate this development, the following actions are reconnnended: -I GEl Consultants, Inc. -vi- 97411\Fbtl\lBXT-A. WPD .: 'I I I I I I 1