Section5_Gap_11-7-07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Section 5 Addressing the Water Supply Gap Technical Roundtable Benefits: ~ Less reliance on additional deliveries from headwaters areas, thus minimizing streamflow impacts in environmentally sensitive areas. ~ Decreases the need for additional transbasin diversions. ~ No net increase in depletions to the river system. Implementation Issues: ~ Water quality is poor and treatment costs (capital and O~eM) are very high. ~ Disposal of treatment waste stream concentrate is a challenge and very costly. ~ Loss of irrigated acreage in production annually regardless of the type of agricultural transfer. ~ Significant energy requirements for pumping and water treatment. Potential Attributes: ~ Potential to collaborate with remaining agricultural users to construct lower basin storage or recharge facilities to improve agricultural yields or provide for well augmentation. ~ Shared infrastructure among water providers, resulting in economies of scale for capital and O~SCM. ~ Can provide for coordinated acquisition of agricultural rights for either a traditional or alternative transfer preserving higher quality/ value agricultural production. ~ Conjunctive use with non-tributary groundwater can potentially improve the overall project operation. 5.4.3 Blue Mesa Multipurpose Project A Blue Mesa Multipurpose Project could divert water from or downstream of Blue Mesa Reservoir for delivery to users areas in the South Platte and Arkansas basins. This would require a contract with the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) for a contract for a portion of the Aspinall yield or the filing of a new water right(s). A new water right would likely require payment to the BOR for power interruption, since the Aspinall Unit power call effectively appropriates the remaining firm annual yield in the Gunnison at Blue Mesa Reservoir. Payment of power cost to reduce the Redlands Call could also increase the yield of a junior water right. The amount of water that may be available for any news consumptive use, whether from a BOR contract or a new appropriation is subject to significant differences of opinion and may range from 0 to over 240,000 AFY. As shown in Figure 5-22, water supplies would be pumped from Blue Mesa Reservoir to Antero Reservoir in the South Platte Basin where the supplies could be gravity fed via the South Platte River to the South Metro gap area and other South Platte water users. In addition, a diversion would also be provided to the headwaters of the Arkansas where water could be diverted by water users throughout the basin. A major pipeline would be required from the Arkansas to provide delivery to the gap area of northern El Paso County. The project could have the potential to provide benefits across multiple basins addressing the gap areas in the Upper Gunnison, South Platte, Arkansas, and potentially alleviating some of the pressure on the headwaters of the Colorado due to transbasin diversions. However, the benefits from the project in any single year would be influenced by available yield. To help ensure protection of in-basin water rights, endangered species, environmental flows and recreational use in Blue Mesa and the Gunnison River downstream, the project would store average to wet year water in Blue Mesa Reservoir for these deliveries. There would also be additional storage required on the Front Range in the South Platte and Arkansas Basin such as expansion of Rueter Hess Reservoir, Pueblo Reservoir, other expanded or new surface reservoirs or alluvial groundwater storage. In addition, it may be beneficial to combine this option with CU and agricultural transfer to increase flexibility and minimize implementation issues. 5-28 FINAL DRAFT