My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD01459
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
FLOOD01459
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/23/2009 1:07:19 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 10:03:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Gunnison
Community
Uncompahgre Valley
Title
Upper Gunnison-Uncompahgre Basin Phase 1 Feasibility Study Summary Report
Date
5/1/1989
Prepared For
Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority
Prepared By
HDR Engineering, Inc.
Floodplain - Doc Type
Project
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
104
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 />4-4 <br /> <br />I <br />. <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />. <br />I <br />. <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />. <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I, <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />4.5 FUTURE WATER AVAILABILITY WITH NO DEVELOPMENT <br /> <br />The hydrologic model discussed previously was operated to evaluate the <br />abil ity of the Study Area's current water suppl i es to meet forecasted water <br />demands. The Moderate Demand Scenario was used to investigate this "No-Action <br />Alternative. . <br /> <br />Municipal and industrial (M&I) demands for very small systems in the <br />basin were not explicitly modeled. Of the 12 M&I demands explicitly <br />represented in the basin model, shortages occurred to only one; a mining <br />demand of 120 af per year located near Crested Butte. Occasional shortages to <br />this demand occur because of a combination of limited physical supply and the <br />fact that its water right has a very junior priority. <br /> <br />Agricultural demands in this No-Action Alternative are those associated <br />with providing a full water supply to currently irrigated lands; no new lands <br />are assumed to be brought into production. Shortages to these irrigation <br />demands are summarized in Table 4.2. The shortages shown in the table are <br />shortages to depletion demands; shortages to headgate diversion demands may be <br />up to four times the shortages shown in the table and divers i on shortages <br />would occur more frequently than indicated in the table. <br /> <br />Further evaluation of these agricultural shortages indicated that the <br />predicted Blue River sub-basin shortage may be overstated. Records of <br />irrigated acreage in this sub-basin are poor to non-existent and could be the <br />cause of overstating the demands. Also, the level of detail of the model <br />makes verification of the adequacy of water supply in this particular <br />sub-bas i n di ffi cult. It was also determi ned subsequent to model i ng that <br />recent purchases of large tracts of land in the sub-basin have resulted in <br />significant amounts of land being taken out of production. In addition, <br />discussions with the Water Commissioner of that District revealed that <br />significant shortages have not occurred historically in the Blue River service <br />area. For the purposes of this study, therefore, the Blue River sub-basin was <br />not considered to be an area with significant agricultural water shortages. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.