My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GunnisonComments14
CWCB
>
SWSI
>
DayForward
>
GunnisonComments14
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/11/2009 10:32:42 AM
Creation date
1/7/2008 12:36:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
SWSI
Basin
Gunnison
Title
Comments 14
SWSI - Doc Type
Comments
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Gary Hausler <br />Western States Water Resources, LLC <br />"A Sustainable Source of Water for the Western U.S." <br /> <br />30f4 <br /> <br />net acre-foot delivered (600,000 AF). Total armual cost of the project would be $2,775 <br />per net acre-foot. This is less than charges currently being paid by some residential <br />customers in the Denver metro area. Finance and operating costs would have to be paid <br />for by water users in all the states that receive benefit. <br />The $ 12 billion proposed cost to the states of Arizona, Nevada, and California is <br />minimal when viewed on a per capita basis and considering that these states can use <br />existing infrastructure to deliver water to end users. <br />The project would require an estimated 1,575 megawatts of electric power. For <br />the purposes oftms proposal, the power would be supplied by newly constructed plants <br />selling electricity exclusively to the proj ect. <br />No new engineering or technology is required for project construction. Multiple <br />systems have been completed in the western U. S. including the Central California and <br />Central Arizona Projects. Worldwide there are several water projects of this magnitude <br />currently under construction including the Great Man-Made River Water Supply Project <br />in Libya. <br /> <br />Phase II <br />More than sufficient water is available in the Mississippi River to provide lateral <br />canals and pipelines to states crossed by the main pipeline. The initial pipeline\canal <br />system would be sized to accommodate these water users although associated costs are in <br />addition to the $20 billion base project cost. <br />In addition, by upsizing the initial pipeline\canal system, providing appropriate <br />filtration systems, and constructing approximately 60 miles of pipe and additional <br />pumping facilities, a line could be placed up the South Platte River from Chatfield <br />Reservoir south of Denver that would connect to the eastern terminus of the existing <br />Roberts Tunnel. Flow could be reversed in the tunnel with water pumped west under the <br />continental divide into existing Dillon Reservoir. A hydroelectric plant could be installed <br />in the Dillon Reservoir Dam to recoup some energy for pumping. Water thus pumped <br />from the Mississippi could be allowed to flow down the Blue River into the Colorado <br />River to benefit Arizona, Nevada, and California. <br />A southern lateral could be constructed with water pumped from the Pueblo area <br />into Colorado's San Luis Valley which is in the headwaters of the Rio Grande thus <br />providing additional water to the fast growing areas of Albuquerque, Las Cruses, EI Paso <br />and south Texas. <br /> <br />Conclusions <br />Building and operating a pipeline from the Mississippi River to the Rocky <br />Mountains provides a sustainable source of water for the Southwestern U. S. <br />The project could be funded without Federal money but will require Federal <br />enabling legislation and substantial cooperation. <br />There are numerous advantages to this proposal and more than numerous <br />problems. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.