Laserfiche WebLink
b. Eagle Countti- Reser~~oir Enlargement. Eagle Count- gave 1041 approval to proceed, and <br />Eagle Counn~ is now looking for a contractor. They hope to be working on the ground in the <br />fall. <br />c. 1082 Stud-: A report is nearly complete, but some key stakeholders have not yet submitted <br />then conunents and required contributions. Some non-stnlctural alternatives have merit, <br />according to Caroline Bradford. <br />d. Energy use subcommittee: Dan Birch of the Colorado River Water Conservation District <br />reported that they are still flushing out the scope of work. Thee are having difficulty <br />obtaining information from the energy industlti- regarding water needs. In particular, oil <br />shale water needs depend on tluee widely varying factors: <br />i. Projected ~~ ester requirements vaI-~~ Isom 0-~ barrels of water needed per ban el of <br />oil produced. <br />ii. Production ranges from 100.000 to 1 million barrels per day. <br />iii. Electric power needs, both to render the oil shale and to accolrnnodate the <br />required worker communities. also require water. <br />Therefore, the water required could range from 10,000 to 500,000 acre feet The US Naval <br />Oil Shale Reserve also has significant water rights that would be available for oil shale <br />development according to Ken Neubecker <br />Electricit~~ Requirements. Up to 12.000 megawatts of electricit~~ could be required to <br />develop oil shale: Colorado's ulnent peak usage is 7.000 MW. It is unlikely that <br />hydropower would provide a significant source of electricit<, since Ulen Canyon dam is only <br />producing about 700 MW per dad-. Xcel Energti~ estimates that Colorado's additional <br />electricity needs in the nel-t 20 ~~ea<s are 4,500 MW, and Xcel is not including oil shale <br />electricit<~ needs in that estimate. <br />e. Vail ditch. The CWCB's niquiries have been addressed, and an intergovernmental <br />agreement and a purchase agreement for the shares have been signed. <br />f. Roaring Fork Watershed. Phase 1 has been completed, and a report is due shortly fiom <br />Sharon Clarke of the Roaring Fork Conservancy. Phase 2 is due to begin in the fall. <br />g. Da~~e Merritt has foni•arded the June 2(1(17 grants appro~-ed b~ the CBRT to the <br />CW CB. <br />15. NCNA Subcommittee report: Lane Wti-att. The subcommittee hasn't recently met, but has <br />scheduled a meeting for Monday August 27, at 10:00 AM at the Ulemyood Springs Colnlmmin~ <br />Rec Center. Lane is ~yorried that the NCNA produced by CUM will merely repackage elisting <br />information into new GIS maps. He believes we need to quantif~~ Ilo~3•s based on elisting <br />gauges, and that site-specific analysis will be ~-°elti~ elpensiye and time consuming. Ta~~lor <br />Hayes conunented that the NCNA ~yill quantifi~ what ideal flo~ys would be in river segments. <br />but this does not mean that water right claims will be made for those needs. Daye Merritt <br />commented that triage means that ti~ou need to decide what segments are not salvageable and that Deietea• c_~n~~~~~~~e~~t~ ~~~~ <br />th1S R,'OUId be Very d1~lCUlt t0 d0. ~ Settmgs`Lr~lis~iLocal <br />~ Settings`:T emporaiti~Internet <br />i FilesVOLIi6D`T~Iinutes Jule X00' <br />16. Requested future discussion topics. ~ cBxT_~i~,~ <br />' Deleted: ~ I> X00 <br />~, <br />- ~ - <br />LInterbnsmCompnetC'onumttae'$asmRonndtablesColorado',A-linntee3007Alinntas7nl~ 3007CBRT.do~ ~~~ lU~= ~ <br />