Laserfiche WebLink
UPCO/Summit County Water 5upply Study <br />December 15, 2004 <br />A new reservoir could capture more water if a replacement supply, not otherwise available to Dillon <br />Reservoir, could be delivered to Dillon. That is, for every acre-foot delivered to Dillon, an acre-foot <br />could be stored at an upstream site, provided there was enough water to meet demand in the <br />intervening reach. Diversions to storage at the upstream reservoirs could then typically occur <br />through much of the runoff season. With respect to Clinton Reservoir, a replacement supply at <br />Dillon Reservoir could permit greater annual use of Clinton water, because Clinton could "work off' <br />its debt to DW by exchanging the replacement supply with DW's credits in Clinton. Furthermore, <br />Clinton could also potentially store water in Dillon under certain conditions. <br />Hence the UPCO/Summit County Participants also identified several new or reconfigured projects <br />that could provide replacement water to serve such purposes: <br />1. Straight Creek Proj ect <br />2. Blue River diversion to Everist Materials gravel pit and pumpback to Dillon Reservoir <br />(Everist pumpback) <br />3. Gravity collection system from tributaries draining the east side of the Gore Range (Gore <br />Range Collection System) <br />A fourth alternative, diversions from Salt Lick Gulch via the Dillon Ditch, with or without <br />enlargement of Old Dillon Reservoir, could provide a replacement supply capable of supporting the <br />upper reservoirs. Summit County is currently investigating that option separately, and results from <br />that effort should be incorporated in any future work that refines the results of this study. <br />The replacement supply projects are the blue symbols in Figure 1. Each of these replacement <br />alternatives collects water from the Blue River system below Dillon and delivers it to Dillon. <br />Although Dillon can be made whole through these operations, Green Mountain Reservoir cannot. In <br />years when the downstream Green Mountain Reservoir is unable to fill, the upper reservoir, <br />regardless of alternative, would be obligated to release whatever it had stored under the exchange. In <br />other words, a new upstream reservoir would be subject to Green Mountain Reservoir's water rights. <br />The objective of this study was to look at feasibility of each of the components identified by the <br />UPCOISuminit County Participants, understanding that a successful approach may require both <br />upstream storage and a replacement supply in the vicinity of Dillon Reservoir. Accordingly, the <br />remainder of the report is divided into two major sections. The first one addresses the upstream <br />reservoir sites, evaluating hydrology, ability to exchange water to the site from Dillon, site <br />characteristics that affect constructability, methods for meeting the needs identified above, and <br />opinion of probable cost. The second section similarly describes the replacement sources, in terms of <br />hydrology, required infrastructure, and opinion of probable cost. <br />It should be understood that this study is a reconnaissance level assessment of several specific <br />alternatives, and that extensive subsequent study will be needed before selecting or proceeding with <br />any given alternative. Institutional and environmental issues have not been explored at any depth <br />within this study, and presumably would be the subject of future work. More specific ideas for future <br />study, and issues that will need exploration, are included in a list at the close of the subsection for <br />each alternative. The lists are not comprehensive but itemize areas identified in the course of this <br />study as needing further development.