My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PUB00105
CWCB
>
Publications
>
Backfile
>
PUB00105
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/11/2009 11:42:27 AM
Creation date
9/30/2006 10:18:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Publications
Year
1999
Title
Conference Proceedings: 24th Annual Gunnison Water Workshop
CWCB Section
Administration
Description
Theme of the workshop was Garden of Dreams v. High-Desert Reality
Publications - Doc Type
Other
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
407
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
<br />Page 2 <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />.. <br />I <br /> <br />A. THE PROBLEM: Maintaining a sustainable supply of water for the front range of <br />Colorado: <br /> <br />1. "Sustainable water supplv": Water supply that meets the needs of the present <br />without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. <br />(paraphrasing Our Common Future, Bruntland, 1987) <br /> <br />2. Waters now supplying front range are a finite resource: <br />(a) Surface supplies (renewable) <br />-South Platte River <br />-Arkansas River <br />-Colorado River <br />(b) Underground supplies <br />-Denver Basin (non-tributary/nonrenewable) <br />-Beebe Draw (alluvial/renewable) <br /> <br />3. Increasing consumption of existing water resources <br />(a) Continued population growth <br />(b) Increasing economic development fueled by population growth <br /> <br />4. Two Forks veto: <br />(a) Two Forks was a major part of plans for Metro Denver water supply <br />(b) Can anticipate that any major water supply project will face same <br />veto: <br />(1) 40 C.F.R. part 230.1O(a) provides: <br />no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if <br />there is a [1] practicable alternative to the proposed <br />discharge [2] which would have less adverse impact on the <br />aquatic ecosystem, [3] so long as the alternative does not <br />have other significant adverse environmental consequences. <br /> <br />(2) Introduction to section 404(b)(1) guidelines states: <br />From a national perspective, the degradation or destruction <br />of special aquatic sites, such as filling operations in <br />wetlands, is considered to be among the most severe <br />environmental impacts covered by these Guidelines. The <br />guiding principle should be that degradation or destruction <br />of special sites may represent an irreversible loss of <br />valuable aquatic resources. <br />(3) 40 C.F.R. part 230. 1 (c) states: <br />The guideline policy states that it is a fundamental precept <br />of federal policy to preclude the discharge of fill material <br />"into the aquatic ecosystem, unless it can be demonstrated <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.