Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Final Draft - Preferred Storage Options Plan <br />Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District <br />June 8, 2000 <br /> <br />noted previously. MW also evaluated storage operations for the condition in which firm Winter <br />Water storage of 40,000 af is not provided (i.e., total storage is 133,100 at). <br /> <br />The storage locations and distributions shown in Table 3.1 were simulated using the model <br />described in Section 3.4 of this report to assess a range of potential impacts, including: changes <br />in monthly flows at key stream gaging stations; storage efficiency (inflows for each storage <br />option required to meet demands); and changes in reservoir levels at Pueblo, Turquoise, and <br />Meredith. <br /> <br />The District and SSC believe that storage options involving gravel lakes or Williams Creek <br />should be considered as local storage options rather than part of a regional project. The <br />modeling completed by MW did not initially consider the 15,000 af of District water <br />management storage. Operation of water management storage has not been specifically defined; <br />however, this storage most likely will replace the need for firm Winter Water storage and storage <br />for well augmentation. <br /> <br />Table 3.2 presents a sixth scenario, which represents the replacement of firm Winter Water <br />storage (40,000 at) and storage for well augmentation supplies (26,000 at) with a 10,000 to <br />15,000 afstorage pool for District water management. This storage would be used to meet a <br />variety of District objectives, as described previously. The plan sho\vn in Table 3.2 places a!l <br />new storage in enlarged reservoirs that are part of the Fry-Ark Project, which is well positioned <br />to meet both municipal and agricultural water supply objectives. As described in Section 4, <br />storage at Pueblo and Turquoise has the best performance in terms of water management and <br />storage efficiency and fewer water quality impacts. Storage costs at these locations are generally <br />lower than other options; however, environmental effects and pennitting challenges may be more <br />significant than the other options studied. <br /> <br />As shown in Table 3.1, re-operation has a significant effect on the cost of storage. Scenario E, <br />which has no re-operation component, has costs in excess of $1,300 per af, while the other <br />scenarios modeled by MW have costs generally under $1, I 00 per af. The scenario with District <br />Water Management Storage has a cost of$800 per af, as indicated in Table 3.2. <br /> <br />Table 3.2 identifies how the storage at various locations under this scenario could potentially be <br />divided among the entities needing storage and the estimated cost to each entity needing storage. <br />The costs shown in Table 3.2 are provided to give an indication of a potential cost distribution <br />without consideration of an entity's ability-to-pay and without giving any consideration to other <br />possible cost allocations, such as those that might emerge from consideration of the amount of <br />historic project repayments that have been contributed by various entities and water user types. <br /> <br />~ GEl Consultants, Inc. <br /> <br />3-30 <br /> <br />l\PROIECTS\9906I\Reports\Prdemd SOP FinaI_wpd <br />