Laserfiche WebLink
I'd reiteraxe again, it was a range of flows for 250 to 2,000 cfs. If <br />you look at a hydrograph, obviously this river gets considerably <br />higher than 2,000 - 3 and 4,000 cfs on good years. It's not designed <br />to control the flow above the 2,000 c£s but it's designed to be stable <br />and not shift or move during those high f low rates. <br />And I guess a few differences in this and the Pueblo course. He's <br />talk?ed about it, I know they're asking for a water right just in what I <br />call the boating season. But if you've been up here in the - <br />wintertime, it can get pretty chilly. And I laiow we talked'about <br />Pueblo, when tliey were talking about the winter season low flaw <br />and hov.v people might go there even though the wa.ter's low because <br />it's warm and it doesn't fraeze. Well we're in the little other <br />extreme up here. And so you look at a bydragraph, 250 c£s in those <br />shoiYlder seasons do.es oecur and it seemed reasonable for the early <br />and the late season. The flows may be that or lower ia the winter <br />seasoa, but reaIly wasn't looking at that because it does freeze. <br />The loyv, if you recall, the tow flow structure - on each sMxctvre,- <br />there's a low flaw and a high flow portions of each structure. In this <br />case, the low flow poition is designed to accommadate and cont.rol <br />up to zera - from zero to 250 cubic feet per second, and t.hat abova <br />that pnmt then rt goes into wbat I call a high flow area. And that fillss <br />up to .an elevation at 2.8 feet of depth to 2,000 c£s. At that point, <br />then it goes - it wM start over top, in wbat T eall the wings, and go <br />azound. And I believe we Iose control of the water at that time, pius <br />the features can start washing out, fla.ttening out and eddies statt <br />moving. So that's the range tbat I felt vvas rmotable and designed <br />- for in this case. The tough t,hing, of coiuse, is; -with the Senate BU., <br />is what is the minimtun flow, reasonable-$ow for a reasanable <br />recreational experience. And I know there's a lot Qf disctLSSion what <br />t1at means and how you pinpoint that, And. I guos I'd gq back to <br />the Went of Crumwison and the District to construGt this project. And <br />I feel that that range is importamt for the wide vaziety of users, you <br />stay within thad rauge. But I feel that these sttuctures do divert, <br />capture aad cqntrol the water witbin that range, as far as utilization <br />o£the water, itself The aine thing, Y guess I did since i vwrote the report. And since this <br />ends - just a chronology. I wrote my report when we were preparmg <br />for this. And then the Pileblo diseussion and case was and now <br />we're here. And since that time, I did auother catculation. And <br />essent.ial[y what I did is based the Weir formula on the depth af flow <br />that we used at Pueblo. And when the Water Conservation Board <br />ailocated a high flow of 500 in that case, there was a depth related to <br />tbat of 2.3 feet of ciepth. So I recalculated at 2.3 feet of depth and <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board <br />September 10, 2002 Hearing 2ranscript <br />Page 29