PUB00048 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I I I I I I' I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT 8/24/92, Page 10 Issues to be addressed Project proponents have been engaged in continued litigation over water rights with the City of Aurora and numerous Gunnison Basin water users. Independent studies suggest that the yield of Union Park would be significantly diminished unless certain existing Gunnison Basin instream flow water rights are subordinated to the proposed project. (HDR and WBLA 1989) There is currently significant opposition to both the Union Park and Collegiate Range projects from west slope water users, citizen groups and local government within the Gunnison Basin, and local and national environmental groups. In addition, there are potential conflicts with claims for federal reserve water rights. Because of the well organized opposition and significant environmental impacts, it is reasonable to assume that Union Park or any other major Gunnison River water export proposal will encounter difficulty in both federal and local permitting processes, the outcome of which will be uncertain. 4. Green Mountain Pumpback The Green Mountain Pumpback would involve the construction of a new reservoir or reservoirs on the Colorado River system above Dotsero to replace a portion or all of the existing functions of Green Mountain Reservoir, located on the Blue River near Kremmling. A conveyance system would then be constructed to pump water from Green Mountain Reservoir to Dillon Reservoir. Engineering studies have identified the following technically feasible replacement reservoir sites: Red Mountain, located on the Colorado River above Kremrnling; Wolford Mountain, located on Muddy Creek near Kremrnling; Azure, located on the Colorado River near Radium; Una, located on the Colorado River above DeBeque; and Wolcott, located on Alkali Creek near Eagle. (The Colorado River Water Conservancy District has recently been granted permits for development of the Muddy Creek Reservoir.) The project could deliver a firm annual yield of up to 124,000 acre-feet at an estimated cost of $520 to $790 per acre-foot of yield. The Green Mountain Exchange concept was first proposed by the Vail Valley Consolidated Water District as an alternative to transmountain water diversions proposed by Denver and other front range cities including Aurora and Colorado Springs. The Vail District felt that to the extent that the points of diversion for such transmountain projects could be moved downstream, to lower elevations where west slope streams are larger and more able to accommodate diversion, impacts could be reduced. In addition, it was felt that cooperative development of multi-purpose replacement storage reservoirs on the west slope could serve water users on both sides of the Continental Divide. The concept of the Green Mountain Exchange was endorsed by the Metropolitan Water Roundtable but was not considered in site- specific detail in the Metropolitan Denver Water Supply EIS. In April of 1987, Boyle Engineering Corporation completed a reconnaissance-level study of the Green Mountain Exchange Project, including preliminary hydrologic, geotechnical, engineering design and cost investigations. This study was paid for by the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority at the joint request of the Denver Water Board and the Colorado River Water Conservation District. While the study was underway, an agreement was reached between Denver, the Colorado River District, and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District effectively endorsing the Green Mountain Exchange as a preferred alternative to the proposed Eagle-Piney, East Gore Canal, and Eagle-Colorado projects. In the Denver Water Board's policy statement responding to the possible EPA veto of Two Forks, the Board indicated that it will continue to work with the Colorado River District and the Northern District toward development of this alternative.