Laserfiche WebLink
<br />{ <br /> <br />November 20~ 2003 <br /> <br />Colorado water development proposals-myths vs. realities <br /> <br />BiQ Straw Proposal <br /> <br />Mvth CDNR's Bjg Straw Study sponsors have assumed Cororado could and should <br />pump back its currently wasted Cororado River Compact losses from near the Utah border. <br />They claim west slope cities, farms, and environments need all current wet year flood flows <br />for beneficial consumptive and recreational needs. They also assume Big Straw can pump <br />Colorado River return flows at a constant day-to-day~ year-ta-year flow rate! without large <br />new reservoirs at both ends of the pipeline. <br /> <br />Reality Colorado River outflows at the Utah border vary from two to eight mfJlion acre- <br />feet during droughts and heavy snowmelt yearsi West slope consumptive and non- <br />consumptjve users need only a smaU fraction of Colorado's normal and above normal <br />outfJows~ Big Straw can not physically return Colorado's wasted outflow entitlements at a <br />constant pumping rate, without massive new flood and drought regulating reservoirs at both <br />ends of the piperine. Wjthout this additional storage, Big Straw!s continuous pumping would <br />dry up the Cororado River during droughts, and increase reservoir spilling and river flooding <br />throughout the regjon during wet cycles. CoforadoJs Big Straw Study js fatally flawed, <br />because its major additional storage requirements were improperly omitted from the concept <br />and cost estimates. Colorado's Gunnison and Colorado River losses have actually been <br />increasing since the early 19608, because of the west slopeJs steady conversion from <br />irrigated farming to tourism (see attached outflow trend charts for the Colorado River <br />Mainstream Basin and its wetter untapped Gunnjson Basin Branch). CDNR's Big Straw <br />Proposal is driven by its unauthorized, but defacto, "not one drop from the Gunnison policy". <br /> <br />South Metro Coniunctive Use Proposal <br /> <br />Mvth Colorado's Conjunctive Use advocates assume that highJy successful Arizona- <br />type conjunctive use techniques, that recharge unconsolidated gravel aquifers with settljng <br />ponds, can also be emproyed to recharge Denver Basin sandstone aquifers with deep wells <br />and unused Two Forks water rights. <br /> <br />Realitv Some small-scale Denver Basjn recharge test wells have been marginaUy <br />successful. However! large scale recharge operations into Denver Basin sandstone aquifers <br />could greatly increase users costs and technical risks for the following reasons: 1) raw water <br />treatment, injection, pumping, retreatment, maintenance, and well replacement costs would <br />substantially increase over time; 2) unpredictable long-term chemical and biological reactions <br />associated with treated surface water injections into sedimentary formations could create <br />serious future public health problems; 3) the slow well injection process required to recharge <br />water-bearing sandstone would require substantial, new flood and drought storagel dedicated <br />solely to recharging well fields; 4) extreme hydraulic pressure changes within sandstone <br />formations from recharge injections can cause un'predictable bedrock fracturing, ground <br />movement, and subsidence problems; and 5) use of excessive Two Forks water rights for <br />South Metro recharge operations would further damage Cororado Mainstream and South <br />Platte tributaries, 'which have been excessiveJy depleted by previous Metro Denver <br />diversions.. <br /> <br />I <br />~ <br />