My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Gunnison Basin Water: No Panacea for the Front Range
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
2001-3000
>
Gunnison Basin Water: No Panacea for the Front Range
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:41:49 PM
Creation date
8/3/2009 10:57:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8230.2G
Description
Related Reports
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
4
Author
The Land and Water Fund of the Rockies
Title
Gunnison Basin Water: No Panacea for the Front Range
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
90
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
The Gunnison: A Basin In Balance <br />The Bureau has agreed to release sufficient water to maintain a 300 cfs mini- <br />mum in-stream flow from July through October between the Redlands diversion and <br />the confluence of the Gunnison River with the Colorado River.55 This minimum flow <br />was deemed necessary to make the fish ladder functional. These flows appear to be <br />getting results. Many pike minnow have used the ladder since its construction and <br />several razorback suckers, recently re-introduced into the river above the ladder, <br />made it over the dam, into the lower Gunnison River, and back up the ladder in <br />2001,56 <br />Severe drought conditions in 2002 led to a failure to meet these target flow <br />levels. As part of an agreement to share water shortages,57 the minimum flows were: <br />June 200 cfs <br />July 250 cfs <br />August 250 cfs <br />September 100 cfs <br />October 0 cfs <br />It is unclear what impact these shortages (and a continued drought) will have on <br />species' recovery. In any event, the underlying agreements permitting the sharing of <br />shortages expires in 2005. <br />3. Hydropower <br />The dams of the Aspinall Unit generate significant hydroelectricity:58 <br />Blue Mesa 96 megawatts <br />Morrow Point 165 megawatts <br />Crystal Dam 28 megawatts <br />The Aspinall Unit's net generation for fiscal year 2000 was 819 GigaWatt- <br />hours (GWh).59 Sales of thi§ power generated over $15 million.s° Replacement <br />power-the true measure of the "worth" of Aspinall generation-could cost consider- <br />ably more than $15 million, especially during an energy crunch. Moreover, we note <br />that the $15 million does not include the additional value Gunnison water has as a <br />major component of the flow of the Colorado River, where it generates additional <br />hydropower at other federal dams downstream. <br />Since CRSPA was passed in 1956, the Colorado Supreme Court has interpreted <br />provisions of the statute in at least two important ways. First, although CRSPA states <br />hydropower is an "incident" of satisfying other project purposes, at the Aspinall Unit, <br />hydropower generation has been identified as a"primary" purpose because of its <br />important contribution to the economic feasibility of the Unit.s' Second, while <br />CRSPA states that hydroelectric power at Aspinall is subordinate to "domestic and <br />irrigation uses," the Supreme Court has confirmed a Water Judge's ruling that this <br />subordination applies only on an inter-state basis, so that hydropower uses of <br />Gunnison Basin Water 0 13 0
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.