Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Finally, Mr. McLoud summarized the benefits of Chatfield reallocation as an <br />alternative: captures in-basin runoff, on channel diversion (best for capturing all range <br />and timing of flows), it's an existing facility so it is both the lowest cost alternative <br />with the least environmental impact, and one of the most sustainable. He also cited <br />the favorable location of Chatfield storage, especially to the upstream users and the <br />ability to better control releases, the positive effect on groundwater recharge, and the <br />relatively quick implementation possible. Mr. McLoud's presentation served as a <br />very good overview and jumping off point for the many individual discussions that <br />followed. <br /> <br />2. The following are some of the major issue areas discussed: <br /> <br />A. Overall study approach, authority, and levels of approval. It was agreed that the "best <br />possible schedule" should be pursued due to funding constraints and the added <br />complexity involved if considering reallocation for ecosystem. It was agreed that a <br />reallocation report without ER as a reallocated purpose would not close out the <br />authority, but that authority would remain for potential subsequent efforts whether for <br />ER at Chatfield Reservoir, or for an overall reallocation study at Bear Creek <br />Reservoir. <br /> <br />The authorizing language provides authority to both study and implement the <br />reallocation. Omaha District will request a legal opinion from its Office of Counsel <br />on whether the authorized reallocation purpose of "fishery habitat protection and <br />enhancement" translates to sufficient authority to reallocate for ER. Meanwhile, local <br />proponents plan to get explicit authority into the next Water Resources Development <br />Act (WRDA). <br /> <br />Instead of a Feasibility Report, a Reallocation Report (RR) with Environmental <br />Impact Statement (EIS) will be produced. Only Corps HQ approvals will be required <br />for this project as long as there are no "significant changes" to the existing project <br />and appropriated funds are not needed. A Chief's Report will not be necessary. Only <br />a finding by the Chief via a memorandum from the director of Civil Works with a <br />recommendation to ASA(CW) will be required. Office of Management & Budget <br />(OMB) review will not be required as long as appropriated funds are not needed. <br /> <br />B. Water Supply Storage Contracts. The Corps would be the owners of the storage, and <br />CWCB or separate users would lease (permanent right to storage) from the Corps. <br />A draft of a revision to the Corps model water supply contract was made available to <br />the local sponsor. <br /> <br />(1) Reallocated purpose(s). The simplest approach would be to reallocate all <br />available extra storage to Municipal & Industrial (M&I), rather than some to <br />Agriculture. This is preferred by the project sponsor and proponents, based on <br />these advantages: simpler analysis, more ability to adjust usage at the local level, <br />avoidance of extra steps related to agriculture, accommodates the "best schedule", <br />and it acknowledges the eventual (and probably current), best and highest use of <br /> <br />2 <br />