Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />Jennifer Gimbel <br />Greg Espegren <br />January 19, 1999 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />times its depletions with upstream storage for the purpose of ensuring that inflows to a 300 foot <br />reach of an impoWlded stream are not diminished, This alternative could require approximately <br />70 acre-feet per month of storage releases. <br /> <br />This proposal was rejected principally because: (1) EMD LLC only has the contract right <br />to purchase 30 acre-feet of Eagle Park Reservoir which it has already dedicated to the <br />Augmentation Plan; and (2) the storage potential for EMD LLC's reservoirs cannot be <br />significantly increased given the design of the reservoirs and the topography of the reservoir <br />sites, In addition, even if adequate winter storage could be acquired from some source, this is not <br />an economically viable approach and nor is it a wise use of scarce resources, This approach <br />could tie up 100s of acre-feet of winter-time storage water to augment a 300-foot reach of stream, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />3, Pump Back Alternative, As we have discussed, an alternative that exists to solve <br />the CWCB's instream flow concerns regarding the 300 foot reach of the Eagle River is to pump <br />the municipal wastewater effluent back upstream, This would appear to be a technically and <br />econoro.ically feasible approach to addressing the CWCB' s concerns, This approach would also <br />mean that the CWCB receives the considerable benefit of water being added to the Eagle River <br />for a 2-3 mile reach upstream of the Raw Water Booster Pump, without suffering any possible <br />depletion to the 300 foot impoWlded reach, However, EMD LLC has rejected this alternative as <br />it would require the residents of the Vail Valley to divert their effluent. <br /> <br />Before this alternative is chosen, we believe the CWCB should consider all of the <br />mitigating factors which support the EMD LLC alternative, not the least of which is (i) the <br />wetted area in the 300 foot reach will not be altered by minor depletions because of the existing <br />impoWldment; (ii) the significant benefit to the Eagle River upstream of the Raw Water Booster <br />Pump given the downstream change in senior irrigation water rights and upstream source of <br />augmentation; and (iii) the fact that the CWCB has historically treated the Raw Water Booster <br />Pump and municipal outfall as being co-terminus, <br /> <br />4, Other Alternatives, Another possible alternative we have discussed is to pump the <br />effluent up the Eagle River to the downstream end of the impoWldment (approximately 60 feet <br />upstream from the municipal wastewater outfall). With this approach, the CWCB is ensured <br />there are no depletions to the non-impoWlded reach of the stream, As we have discussed, the <br />amoWlt of wetted surface area in the impoWldment should not be reduced by any minor reduction <br />in incoming flows. Moreover, this alternative would not require the residents of the Vail Valley <br />to divert their own effluent to maintain flows coming in to the impoWldment. This approach <br />appears feasible, but will require further investigation on our part, <br /> <br />. sb0530 <br />