Laserfiche WebLink
<br />changing hands, change in timing of withdraw may not occur. <br /> <br />(3) Mitigation. Mitigation must be completed prior to storage of reallocated water. <br />Normally, the Corps would accept sponsor funds to design, supervise, and <br />administer the contracts to perform mitigation, both for recreation and <br />environmental impacts. It was thought at the meeting that the Corps would want <br />to follow this protocol, at least for the environmental mitigation. But, as Colorado <br />State Parks is responsible for the recreation facilities, perhaps the State could <br />perform the recreation mitigation. Need to determine if this is possible and what <br />would need to be done to make it happen. <br /> <br />(4) Coordination on agriculture. The Corps will need to write a letter to the Bureau <br />of Reclamation essentially stating the following: "Corps involved in a <br />reallocation study at Chatfield and we are looking at reallocation of storage. The <br />Corps has Sec 808 authority for Chatfield, Western Mutual Ditch and Central <br />agricultural users are interested in storage, and the Corps is considering <br />negotiating with them for storage in our reservoir under our current regulations. <br />Please advise if there are any problems". <br /> <br />If contracted for agricultural use, the Corps would also send letter to agricultural <br />users stating: "Agricultural irrigation Water User will pay ~acre-feet for <br />agriculture water storage as long as the water used is for agricultural purposes. <br />Should you desire to sell this for M&I, the Corps will renegotiate the terms and <br />conditions of the storage. Mitigation costs need to be paid 100% up front by <br />water users as required under M&I terms" . <br /> <br />C. Analytical Requirements. <br /> <br />(1) Project alternatives are acceptable as currently scoped. In the economic analysis, <br />the study will require that we show the "no action plan" alternative, and in <br />addition, we will need the "least-cost alternative" to using Chatfield for water <br />supply. These may be the same for this project. It hasn't yet been determined <br />whether the amount of storage supplied by this proposed reallocation is sufficient <br />to significantly affect what other alternatives will be employed. The least-cost <br />sustainable alternative will probably be 2 big gravel pits, one in the south part of <br />the metro area, and one a Reuter-Hess reservoir expansion. The big gravel pit is <br />apparently already being constructed. It was explained that it will take about as <br />long to get the permits for the gravel pits as it would take for the Chatfield <br />recreation mitigation (3-5 years). <br /> <br />The water users committed to continue looking at the no-action alternative. In <br />addition, the PDT will look at the 2 big gravel pits as an alternative, and 7,700 <br />and 20,600 acre-feet of storage reallocation as alternatives. It is expected that <br />analysis will easily show that the optimization problem becomes a maximization <br />within constraints, therefore analysis of additional "points on the curve" would <br />not be expected to add value. A linear pro-ration of the no-action alternative may <br /> <br />4 <br />