Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.L U06V .... VI. . <br /> <br />('t) <br /> <br />Gilbert, Hanna <br /> <br />From: Jeff Crane Ueffcrane@tds.net] <br />Sent: Monday, December 01,2003 6;55 PM <br />To: SWSJ (Statewide Water Supply Initiative) <br />Cc: Rick Brown <br />Subject: Re: SWSI Gunnison Basfn Update - November 2003 <br /> <br />Response to update from Jeff Crane, Gunnjson Basin Roundtable Participant: <br /> <br />1. Future Water Projects: <br />I have received calls from several water interests in the North Fork watershed concerning new projects. Most <br />responses include the rebuildjng and possibJe expansion of existing dams on the Grand Mesa. There are dozens <br />of dams that can be reconstructed that are currently under a State Engineer's order that limits its fill capacity <br />because of safety reasons. The rebuilding of these dams wiU significantly increase storage capacity with minimal <br />environmental jmpact and most likely signrfrcanUy increase recreational benefits also. The water can be put to <br />beneficial use !ocally. Overland Reservoir is current'y being investigated for expansjon. <br /> <br />Paonia Reservoir is filling up with sediment at a rate of 100 ac/ftlyr. The North Fork Water Conservancy District ;s <br />researching the potential of dredgrng the reservoir and pumping the sediment into the North Fork during the <br />spring runoff at the same rate as the pre-dam era. Restoration projects downstream have been jntentiaUy <br />designed to encourage overbank floodjng and the deposition of sediment back onto the floodplain. With the <br />proper monitoring, aquatic habitat can be protected and the storage capacity of the reservoir can be maintained at <br />its current leveL Additional, excavation of the upper end of the reservoir in late summer can increase storage <br />capacity and innovative bioengineering techniques in the upper watershed could reduce the sediment load into <br />the reservoir. <br /> <br />The Cactus Park reservoir project has been resurrected by the Grand Mesa Water Conservancy Distrjct but it has <br />been shown that there is little water available to fill it and previous cost-benefit ratios have not proven this to be a <br />viable project. Nonetheless it is a potential project to be reviewed~ <br /> <br />Conservation should always be a consideration~ The reconstruction of existing irrigation diversions on the North <br />Fork have eliminated the need for bulldozers in the channel and increased ditch efficjency. Limiting diversions to <br />their decrees have helped increase in-stream fJows in specific reaches of the river and helped downstream <br />ditches retrieve their full allocationS4 Floodplain rehabilitatron projects in the North Fork have also shown that <br />reconnecting the river with 1tS floodpJain have increased riverine wetlands that act like a sponge to soak up water <br />in flood conditions and sfow'y release it back to the channaf during droughts. The consolfdation of braided <br />channels into a srngle..thread meandering channel has also simp~ified the abiljty of irrigation ditches to efficiently <br />divert their water while increasing in-stream flows. These types of projects are relatively inexpensive and benefit <br />the environment and recreatjon while conserving water. <br /> <br />2. Revised Objectives: <br />I was surprised to see Municipal/Industrial demands lumped tn with Agriculture. These should be separated <br />similar to Recreational and Environmental. I believe thrs makes envjronmental and recreational issues perceived <br />as a constraint and not equal partners. Tourism is a major economic factor in this state and without environmentaJ <br />and recreational interests the state wUI suffer. There needs to be equal footing for protection of all interests~ <br /> <br />There needs to be a statement about sustajnabiHty under environmental objectives. Water to sustain <br />environmental needs is just as important as the others. <br /> <br />The second bullet on objective 6 cans for fang-term needs beyond 30 years~ I was understanding that the scope <br />of this project was Ijmited to 30 years. Going beyond 30 opens up a whole new approach. <br /> <br />Other comments; Js there a method for removing ag demands from the demand methodology when ag ground <br />goes into residential development? It seems that that might actuarly be a net gain in supply when farms are <br /> <br />3/8/2004 <br />