My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Bureau Considers Canal as Source of Water for Fish
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
5001-6000
>
Bureau Considers Canal as Source of Water for Fish
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/31/2012 2:52:20 PM
Creation date
7/31/2012 2:17:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Bureau Considers Canal as Source of Water for Fish The Daily Sentinel
State
CO
Date
5/20/1995
Author
McGregor, Heather
Title
Bureau Considers Canal as Source of Water for Fish
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
News Article/Press Release
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
Page 1 of 1
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
MAY -23 -95 02 :44 FROM: COLO RIVER DISTRICT ID: 3039458799 <br />Bureau considers <br />canal as source <br />of water for fish <br />Heather McGregor 5,_ A 01 W <br />C»iiy Sentinel <br />The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation <br />is eyeing the Government Highlinc <br />Canal as a source of water for <br />endangered fish in the f,.'olorado <br />River. <br />But fruit ranchers along the <br />canal need not worry about losing <br />water, officials say. <br />At present, the Grand Valley <br />Water users Association has to <br />keep a flow of at least 450 cubic <br />feet per second in the flighlitâ–ºe <br />Canal so the water is high enough <br />to reach all diversion points. <br />By September. irrigators are <br />only using about 250 cfs. said Dick <br />Proctor. Grand Valley manager, <br />The bureau would like to figure <br />nut. a way for the other 200 cfs to <br />stay in the Colorado River for the <br />fish. It would come at just the <br />right time. when flows are at their <br />lowest. due to irrigation diver. <br />lions. <br />-We're looking at installing <br />check structures to artificially <br />raise the level of water in the <br />canal." said Bob Norman, hureau <br />engineer. <br />The automated gate would <br />drop down into the canal when <br />they're needed. and the lower <br />water would pool up behind them <br />to the normal level, just like little <br />dams and reservoirs In the eatl.il. <br />Norman figures five or six auto- <br />mated structures would serve the <br />entire 55- mile -Ion; canal, and <br />See CANAL, pride 12B > <br />CANAL: Automated, gates <br />estimated to cost $ 5 million <br />x. Continued from page 19 <br />estimates the systetn would cost <br />about $5 million. <br />"We know that technically we <br />Can do it. But how we're going to <br />protect that water if it stays in the <br />rivet' is still up in the air." Nor- <br />man said. <br />Under state water law, water <br />that's not taken from the river is <br />up for grabs by other water users, <br />In this case, water users east of <br />Glenwood Sprints would he drool - <br />ino over the possibilities. <br />"We'd get a windfall of water <br />from this, and the question is, how <br />do you divide it up and who pays'" <br />said John Hamill, directur of the <br />fish recovery project for the U.S. <br />Fish and Wildlife "rvice. <br />The Bureau of Reclamation isn't <br />going to shell out $5 million for <br />check structures on the Highlinc° <br />Canal if the water doesn't stay in <br />the river for the fish. <br />Securing that water would <br />likely be seen as a bit; step in the <br />recovery program. said Norman, <br />and something that would prevent <br />the. Fish and Wildlif'r Service from <br />reiecting all new watr.r diversions. <br />PAGE 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.