Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />2.0 EXCHANGE REACH STREAM FLOWS <br /> <br />For reasons outlined in a September 30, 2004, letter from Resource Engineering, Inc., to <br />Mr. Dan Merriman, it is the opinion of the BWCD that sufficient exchange capacity exists <br />in the Roaring Fork River above its confluence with the Fryingpan River to support the <br />exchanges proposed in the two water court applications (copy attached). The letter <br />provides evidence that even in a severe drought year such as 2002, sufficient water was <br />available to satisfy both the 55 cfs instream flow and proposed exchanges. This finding <br />is significant as the 2002 water year was extremely rare. Statistical analyses completed <br />by RESOURCE conclude that Roaring Fork streamflows will drop to levels observed in <br />August and September 2002 on a projected recurrence interval between 1 year in 100 <br />and 1 year in 300. We have attached a copy of RESOURCE's February 6, 2004, <br />Memorandum documenting its statistical analysis (Attachment 2). <br /> <br />3.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Notwithstanding the fact that the BWCD believes that the requested exchanges can <br />operate without injury to CWCB, it desires certainty in its decrees regarding its annual <br />Operating Plan and ability to augment by exchange within the upper Roaring Fork River. <br />To this end, the BWCD has explored numerous alternatives designed to increase water <br />supply to the critical reach of the Roaring Fork River located a short distance above <br />Basalt, Colorado. Alternatives considered by District include: acquisition of senior water <br />rights within the critical reach, purchase of historic consumptive use credits located in <br />the upper basin near Aspen, Colorado, and construction of a pump and pipeline system <br />that would pump water from the Roaring Fork River below its confluence with the <br />Fryingpan River and deliver it to the upstream reach. <br /> <br />Despite over a year of effort and expenditure of tens of thousands of dollars in research <br />and negotiations, the BWCD was unable to implement any of the considered <br />alternatives. Owners of the targeted water right generally were not interested in selling <br />their rights at prices close to market value, and the pumpback system would be very <br />. expensive and difficult to permit and construct. <br /> <br />5 <br />