Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1 <br /> <br />Yuma Desalt Plant Alternatives to Operation - In donjunction with the AOP meetings, will be <br />meetings to discuss the need to operate the Yuma DeSalt Plant. It has not been necessary to operate <br />the Desalter because the need do so has been offset by the savings from lining the Coachella Canal <br />(approximately 132,000 af). California now has a need for that water and the interim period for using . <br />those savings is now over in the opinion of California; and Arizona. Thus, the need for discussions on <br />alternative sources to use to offset the need to operate! the Desalter. Operation of the Desalter would <br />have serious environmental impacts to the Santa Clar~ Slough; thus these discussions are to be taken <br />seriously. More on this matter as it develops. j <br /> <br />Gunnison River Basin Issues <br /> <br />Agenda item 21e is being devoted to a range of CUlTent Gunnison River Basin issues. <br /> <br />Platte River B~in Issues <br /> <br />South Platte Study Update: The CWCB is undertakitig a reconnaissance level study of water <br />management and storage sites in the lower South Platte basin. The study focus is on potential water <br />. management opportunities from approximately the T~arack Ranch State Wildlife Area to the <br />Colorado-Nebraska state-line. The study is intended to:provide infonnation to assist in identifying <br />surface storage structures to facilitate the managementofSouth Platte River flows. This includes <br />coordinating ground water recharge projects, in-state beneficial uses -- such as water right and South <br />Platte River Compact administration -- for' providing b~nefits for biological species of concern in <br />Colorado, and for participation in an endangered speci~s program being developed pursuant to the Platte <br />River Cooperative Agreement. <br />i . <br />A draft report of the study results is expected in late Mayor early June. The Board will be provided with <br />a detailed summary of the study results in July along with staff recommendations about proceeding with . <br />a Feasibility Study. <br /> <br />Approximately 19 potential storage sites have been id~tified ranging in size from approximately 1,000 <br />to 21,000 acre-feet. We are in the process of screening the sites but do not have final results. At this <br />time no single site stands out. There are pros and cons for each of the sites so careful review of the sites <br />is warranted. : <br /> <br />Water availability analysis under a junior water right iPdicates that there is sufficient water available for <br />storage. However, much of this water is available in lDecember and January. Winter surface diversion <br />in the lower Platte River may be difficult for some of~e sites and/or impossible for other sites. To <br />offset this challenge we will look at the potential to fill the storage sites via pumping but this will drive <br />up operating costs. . . <br /> <br />Preliminary cost estimates for the storage sites range from $840 to $3600 per acre-foot of storage, <br />excluding conveyance. The next steps in the study J.,rm be to fmalize the alternative evaluation <br />process and cost estimates, screen and rank alternatiyes, estimate yields and benefits, and assess <br />potential issues and impediments. ' . <br /> <br />Chatfield Reservoir Re-allocation Study: A coor4ination meeting was held on April 19 where the <br />contractor, Simons and Associates, outlined the stat\1s of their work. There was a discussion of <br />reservoir hydrologic models, environment assessmepts, recreational inventories, and project design <br />characteristics. The contractor also outlined the nee1 for additional field surveys, stream cross <br />sections, and guidelines for the water availability an;aIyses component ofthe study. <br />! <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />8i <br />, <br />