Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />are not decreed for this new use. Therefore, most of the reservoirs would require new junior refill <br />rights for this new use. <br />The only Expanded CROPS alternative that the study showed was not feasible in its proposed form <br />was Alternative 1b, Ruedi Reservoir Operations, which was not able to make the full 20,000 acre-feet <br />release/bypass because of: (1) downstream channel constraints and (2) limited physical water <br />availability which prevented the replacement of the 20,000 acre-feet in Ruedi Reservoir under the <br />reservoir's refill right. For these reasons, the consultant team recommends that Ruedi Reservoir's <br />contribution to the 20,000 acre-feet release/bypass be limited to 7,000 acre-feet or less. <br />The "Share the Pain" consists of Alternatives 1f and 1g. The "Share the Pain" attempts to minimize <br />the risk to individual facilities by placing responsibility on as many facilities as possible for supplying <br />some portion of the 20,000 acre-feet to the 15-Mile Reach. Analysis of this alternative indicates that <br />the 20,000 acre-feet can generally be replaced in the various facilities by diverting to storage under the <br />reservoirs' refill rights or a new refill right. The "Share the Pain" may also be necessary because of the <br />limited release capacity at some of the reservoirs. For example, Green Mountain Reservoir was <br />restricted from making both the estimated CROPS bypasses and the 20,000 acre-feet release in one of <br />the eight years of the study period in which the 20,000 acre-feet release would be required. <br />Technical Memorandum No. 7 (Appendix H) utilized both a proportionate release among nine <br />reservoirs, and an equal release among three reservoirs to model the "Share the Pain". A Modified <br />"Share the Pain" was developed in which responsibility for supplying the 20,000 acre-feet release was <br />shared among Green Mountain;-Granby,-Ruedi, Williams Fork and W-olford-Mountain Reservoirs. <br />Under this Modified "Share the Pain", as much of the 20,000 acre-feet was released from Green <br />Mountain Reservoir as possible without releasing flows through the turbine bypass and releasing the <br />remainder of the 20,000 acre-feet from other reservoirs. <br />FEASIBILITY OF EFFICIENCIES OF CONVEYANCE AND DISTRIBUTION <br />FACILITIES ALTERNATIVES <br />Alternatives 3d, Re-analysis of Grand Valley Water Management Alternatives, and 3e, Analysis of <br />' GVIC Water Management, were analyzed as components of Alternative 1 a, Green Mountain <br />Reservoir Operations. This analysis focused on: (1) making the 20,000 acre-feet release to the 15-Mile <br />Reach from Green Mountain Reservoir and (2) the potential for replacing this 20,000 acre-feet in <br />Green Mountain Reservoir by accruing "savings" to the Historic Users Pool (HUP) through increased <br />GVP and GVIC efficiency. <br />Analysis of this alternative indicated that diverting to storage under the Green Mountain refill <br />priority was a more efficient way to replace the 20,000 acre-feet supplied to the 15-Mile Reach than <br />attempting to make this replacement with reduced demand for releases from the Green Mountain <br />' HUP. Furthermore, based on the analysis using StateMod and the C1 Data Set, there was limited <br />reduced demand on the HUP as a result of increased GVP efficiency. Therefore, it appears that this <br />alternative would be a more efficient and effective source of supply for making releases to the 15- <br />Mile Reach during the late summer and early fall than for releases during the spring peak flows. <br />1 <br />' P:\Data\GEN\CWCB\19665\Report Phase 2\FinalReport9.03\Final_CFOPS_Repott(9-03).doc 5