My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD02168
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
FLOOD02168
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2010 6:23:36 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 10:40:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Gunnison
Community
Uncompahgre Valley
Basin
Gunnison
Title
Uncompahgre Valley Reclamation Project - Hydropower - Part 4 - Scoping Report Gunnison River Contract
Date
1/1/1990
Floodplain - Doc Type
Project
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
313
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 />a party of three are abundant in the region. Please see <br />RESPONSES to COMMENTS OR-28 through OR-30 for further <br />information. <br /> <br />8 . MR. !'RED WETLAUI'ER: (Represented Western Colorado Conqress) . <br />He indicated that his organization felt that the ecosystem of the <br />Gunnison River would best be served with water levels maintained <br />near the 600-ft3/s level for the majority of the time. The <br />ecosystem would suffer irreparable damage at water levels below <br />this amount for extended periods of time. With the project, flow <br />levels at 300 ft3/s would increase from 8 percent to 48 percent of <br />the time. He stated that his position is supported by statements <br />submitted by Jack Stanford and by historical flow data. <br /> <br />Low flows in the Uncompahgre River through Montrose would reduce <br />aesthetic values and preclude the potential development of <br />self-supporting fisheries. Downstream from Montrose, the river <br />would have to undergo extensive bank stabilization to accommodate <br />increased flows; the full extent of that work and its causes and <br />effects are still under study. <br /> <br />Without knowing the terms of the contract between the Water Users <br />and Mitex, it is impossible to assess the possible benefits or <br />liabilities to the water users. <br /> <br />Western Colorado Congress recognizes that hydropower is a clean <br />and non-polluting source of electricity. We understand that <br />Public Service Company will have a need for more power by 1992, <br />when this project is scheduled to go on line. Therefore, this <br />project will not replace any existing coal-fired power produc- <br />tion, but will displace whatever highest cost power they have <br />available to them at the time, be it coal-fired, natural gas, or <br />even possibly another hydro project. This project will also <br />preclude the same amount of power that Colorado-Ute may have been <br />able to sell to Public Service Company in 1992, just by the <br />nature of their being there, that it pushes other potential <br />producers out of the market. This project only adds to the <br />financial burden of Colorado-Ute. <br /> <br />The project's power contract expires in 15 years. Not only will <br />a new contract be required to be renegotiated, they will also be <br />in a much more competitive market, due to the revisions and the <br />PURPA laws. <br /> <br />The economic data on fishing and rafting industries is not fully <br />quantified, especially in the area of economic growth; there is <br />very little accounting of the possible growth rate of these <br />industries. <br /> <br />Western Colorado Congress has been in contact with the water <br />users seeking an alternative that could be built and still <br />protect the Gunnison and Uncompahgre Rivers. <br /> <br />If existing values are diminished or decreased, it makes Montrose <br />a less attractive place to live. <br /> <br />P-7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.