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
Moving Blue Mesa's Marketable Yield: A <br />2. County Regulation of Facilities With a Statewide Impact <br />Another consideration regarding trans-mountain diversion is the 1974 "H.B. <br />1041 Act.""' H.B. 1041 encourages local governments to take the lead in permitting <br />and regulating matters that are of concern beyond the local level and/or matters that <br />have statewide impacts.134 <br />In 1990 Gunnison County adopted regulations under the authority of the Act <br />that subject all newly proposed "special development projects," such as large-scale <br />water projects, to a permitting requirement.15 These regulations seek to "promote <br />the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Gunnison County," and to <br />"protect the beauty of the landscape and the rural character of the county [and] <br />enhance recreational opportunities for residents and visitors."16 Significantly, these <br />regulations govern "municipal or industrial water projects" and would thus apply to <br />any newly proposed trans-mountain diversion.137 <br />The Gunnison Regulations require water project applicants to satisfy a number of <br />requirements designed to prevent adverse effects on environmental and socioeconomic <br />conditions. Before any permits can be issued for special development projects by the <br />Board of County Commissioners of Gunnison County, applicants must comply with an <br />application process that requires submitting detailed project plans and costs, an outline <br />of "project alternatives," payment of fees, a"comprehensive analysis" of all environmen- <br />tal and socioeconomic impacts, and, most importantly, an explanation of "the need for <br />the proposed project in the County,""° This information "must be submitted not only for <br />the proposed project, but also for a no-action alternative and for ... other reasonable <br />alternatives," including "alternative locations outside the county."19 <br />The regulations provide six pages of conditions under which applications may <br />be reviewed."° A sampling of grounds upon which trans-mountain diversions could <br />be denied includes: projects that will have a significantly adverse net effect on water <br />rights, or on the capacities or functioning of streams, lakes, reservoirs, floodplains, <br />wetlands, and/or riparian areas "within the impact area" (which is defined to include <br />Gunnison County and, under certain circumstances, adjoining counties).14' <br />H. Conclusion <br />Exporting Gunnison water to the Front Range faces enormous challenges. As a <br />result, the Front Range should look elsewhere for water. Fortunately, it will find that <br />there are alternatives that are less costly and less controversial. Indeed, as Chapter 3 <br />shows, part of the solution to the problem lies no farther, literally, than the Front <br />Range's backyards. <br />• 32 • The Land and Water Fund of the Rockies
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.