Laserfiche WebLink
Feasibility Evaluation of the Arkansas Valley Pipeline <br />Water Works! Committee <br />June 2003 <br />concern in the future. Therefore, the proposed exchange should not adversely impact support <br />of beneficial uses or dischargers along the lower Arkansas River <br />3.2.5.3 Summary of Potential Water Quality Effect on Feasibility of Obtaining Decrees for Exchanges <br />The water quality concerns in the lower Arkansas River basin have been present for many <br />years and are due, in large part, to the geology of the basin. <br />To the best of our knowledge, these water quality issues have not yet prohibited the ability of <br />other water rights holders in the basin from making similar exchanges. There have been <br />objections filed in Aurora's exchange applications on the basis of potentially reduced water <br />quality. Aurora, however, expects to reach satisfactory terms and conditions with these <br />objectors, and receive a decree for their requested exchange. <br />A decision in the two Denver Water v. Thornton exchange cases should clarify much of the <br />present uncertainty concerning the potential for water quality effects from the proposed <br />exchange to hinder obtaining a decree for the exchange. <br />The 303(d) listing of the lower Arkansas River as only partially supporting the designated <br />uses for specific reaches due to high levels of selenium, iron, and sulfate and whether this <br />issue could provide a vehicle for the CDPHE to object to a proposed 6,000 ac-ft exchange <br />were analyzed. Based on available data and mass balance calculations, it appears that the <br />estimated increased levels of selenium, iron, and sulfate as a result of the exchange are not <br />sufficient to elevate levels of these constituents above the current stream standards for this <br />reach of the Arkansas River. <br />Much of the above analysis involves murky areas of water quality law and regulations and <br />water law. Legal counsel knowledgeable in these areas should be involved in further <br />analysis of these matters. <br />Based on our analysis of the potential effects of the proposed 4,300 ac-ft exchange to storage <br />in Pueblo Reservoir, there are no apparent definite fatal flaws resulting from water quality <br />effects that would prohibit, or seriously impair, the feasibility of this proposed exchange. <br />Legal counsel knowledgeable about both the water rights and water quality issues should be <br />involved in further investigations of the feasibility of this proposed exchange. The Denver <br />Water v. Thornton cases should be monitored closely and the eventual decision or settlement <br />reviewed carefully. <br />In conclusion, more legal research is needed, as well as discussions with both the State <br />Engineer's Office and Water Quality Control Division to help answer some of these <br />questions before an exchange is sought. <br />26 <br />GEI Consultants, Inc. 0128403-06-30 Feasibility Evaluation Final <br />