Laserfiche WebLink
<br />meeting, it was suggested that revenue losses be compensated for by increasing the cost of power <br />to market level. <br /> <br />The Montrose County Commissioners and the Montrose Economic Development Council noted <br />that the proposed contract has the potential to adversely affect hydropower production and <br />revenues because: (1) spring and summer releases that exceed the 2,000 cfs intake capacity of <br />Crystal Powelplant represent lost electrical generation, and (2) power is worth more in the <br />winter than in the spring; decreasing winter flows to provide high spring flows will substantially <br />decrease Aspinall Unit power revenues and will require W AP A to frod another power source at <br />higher rates. <br /> <br />Many commented on the need to identify cumulative impacts of replacing lost power because <br />of the contract. Ms. Boretz wrote that environmental problems would be created if other dams <br />are constructed to replace power losses. Montrose Partners emphasized that it would be <br />important to quantify extra emissions caused by increased operation of existing gas- or coal-f1red <br />powelplants with implementation of the contract. Mr. Hinchman suggested that improving <br />efficiency and "demand-side management" for existing power facilities could compensate for <br />power losses caused by the contract. <br /> <br />Item 18. <br /> <br />Regional Economy - The analysis should address existing basinwide social and <br />economic impacts dependent on existing or future development of water supplies <br />(agriculture, ranching, tourism). <br /> <br />Refer to: Gunnison, Montrose and Delta meetings; UGRWCD; Mr. Butterfield; the Montrose <br />County Commissioners; the Montrose Economic Development Council; Montrose Partners; Mr. <br />Robinson; Ms. Boretz; Congressman Campbell; Arapahoe County; CREDA; the NPCA; Non- <br />Federal Parties to the 1975 Exchange Agreement; the Sierra Club. (33 comments) <br /> <br />Many respondents were concerned abOut contract-caused changes in water supply and effects on <br />various businesses, such as agriculture, ranching, recreation, and tourism. It was stressed that <br />the integration of Upper and Lower Gunnison Basin needs to avoid conflicts. Concerns were <br />also expressed abOut economic losses and gains (including tax revenues) to local areas, counties, <br />and the larger regional areas. Impacts to the quality of life, land/property values, and aesthetics <br />were also mentioned. Others were concerned abOut who would bear the costs of power losses <br />and replacement. Numerous respondents brought up the effect of the water delivery contract <br />on viability of other water projects (AB Lateral, Union Park Reservoir, transbasin diversions) <br />as well as on State of Colorado water storage and interstate compact provisions. There was <br />some sentiment that the contract would increase the amount of water lost to other states, such <br />as Arizona and California. One reviewer mentioned the potential impact on Federal budgets and <br />staffs and how this might affect the regional economy. <br /> <br />33 <br />