Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Attachment: Agenda Item No, 22 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />-,"ORTII HIRK WATER COSSERVA"'Cr II/STRKT <br /> <br />To ("WCB Board and SlalT. <br /> <br />The North Fmk Water Conservancy District wouk! again like 10 comment on the proposed <br />ISF tiling fur Muddy, Anthracite and Coal Creeks First, we y..ould like to thank the ('WeB for <br />delaying their tiling and as.~sting in the study of water a"ailability and demand in the Surth Fork <br />of the Gunnison. This ",ork ha... bt.'t.."fl \let)' helpful and has product:d some Hood inttlmlalioll <br />l:nfortunately. there are still unresolved i!'>..<iUeS and we see no need to rush fornard with filing at <br />this time <br /> <br />There arc two main and related issues on Mud~' Creek (and to a lesser degree on Anthracite <br />and Coal Creeks) First is the desire to protect future development potential from the ctleclS of <br />the ISF The studiL'S of demand and availabilit), indicate thai there is a need for augmcnlalion <br />,..ater to allow future dc..-dopment The question is where that wah.-r can come from-and this is a <br />subject thai would benetit from further study and discussion Secondly ttk...-e IS the i~'>Ue of <br />physical availability of water in the stretch <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Concerning augmentation. the problem is challor an aug.mentation plan to be acct.jJted, th~ <br />~upply must be consistent and sufficient all the time, not just on average. Whik the LRE slUdy <br />shows a comparali'fely small pt.'rce1ltage shortfall. on average, b)' month. this docs not mean thai <br />the actual daily augmcrlt3lion needs "'ould be cO\:eroo Ifth~ needs can't be' shOYoll to b~ met. <br />an augmentation plan would be turned down There are many da)'S on ""hleh the Muddy dOt..'S not <br />ha\'c the Ill"" 10 cmer the ISF and a... a result. junior uses above Ihis stretch ....ould have to be <br />curtailed. The problem is quantity and tocation ofttle augmentation sourcc For calls helm.\, the <br />Paonia Reservoir there would be the polcntial to use reservoir water for au!9nentation, but for <br />upstream calls there is no 3\ollilabk- source <br /> <br />Additionally, Paonia Reservoir is by no means a guaranteed supply There are many hoops 10 <br />jump through to assure lhis source first the Bureau of Reclamation ",ould haw to agrt.'e 10 a <br />change of use in our contract Other water users ",ould probabfy haye to ag.ree to forego the use <br />of some of their water Finally, Paonia Resef"..oir is silting up ",;lh sedimem which will reduce the <br />available supply The NFWCD i!t tf);ng to study the actual rate of sedimnnation and options for <br />removal. but this work is still incomplete (The Rj"'ef District has applied for funds from the <br />Severance Tax Trust Fund 10 continue this stud)") Also, when looking at the amounts of <br />augmentation water needed for all three streams the tolal wouk1 be over 3)0 af and Ihis would <br />still leave shortages to be covered Iltis amount is probably more than Paonia Reservoir could <br />yield flu augmentation pu~ C1earl)o. there are a oomber ofunresoh'oo issues to be worked <br />out <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />