Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Final Draft - Preferred Storage Options Plan <br />Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District <br />June 8, 2000 <br /> <br />appropriate, in light of the potential ability to use several existing storage <br />reservoirs to facilitate interruptible supply transfers between agricultural and <br />municipal water users. <br /> <br />In summary, the District Water Management Storage would meet the following needs: <br /> <br /> Volume <br /> (at) <br />Storage for capture of Winter Water spills as a result of re-operation 5,000 <br />Storage for well augmentation and return flow regulation 5,000 <br />Water bank and interruptible supply storage 5,000 <br />Total 15,000 af <br /> <br />2.5 Consequences of Not Implementing the Preferred Plan <br /> <br />Implementation of the preferred plan described in Section 5 of this report will provide the <br />storage needed to meet the long-range water management objectives of the District and the water <br />users who are within the District. A primary advantage of the preferred plan is that it represents <br />a regional solution and, therefore, will help to minimize the potential for proliferation of smaller <br />storage projects that cumulatively could cause greater environmental, social, and economic <br />impacts to the region. Potential consequences of not implementing the preferred plan include: <br /> <br />. Individual municipal entities, both within and outside of the District, could pursue <br />developing their own, individual projects, such as Tennessee Creek, Box Creek, <br />Hayden Ranch, Elephant Rock, and others proposed during recent years. <br /> <br />. Implementation of smaller, more geographically diverse projects could make it <br />more difficult to achieve established resource agency goals for managing stream <br />flows on the Arkansas between Turquoise Lake and Pueblo Reservoir. <br /> <br />. The full potential of the Fry-Ark Project to meet regional water management <br />needs, which is achievable through re-operation, would not be realized. This <br />could result in building as much as 48,000 af of additional storage capacity. <br /> <br />. Loss of the opportunity to implement a project (or projects) that meet regional <br />needs rather than individual local needs. <br /> <br />. Potentially greater adverse environmental impacts could occur. The preferred <br />plan relies on reservoir enlargements to meet new storage needs. Enlargements <br /> <br />m GEl Consultants, Inc. <br /> <br />2-12 <br /> <br />J:\PROJECTS\99061\ReporuIPrefemd SOP Final wpd <br />