My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PROJ00229
CWCB
>
Loan Projects
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
PROJ00229
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/19/2009 11:43:12 AM
Creation date
10/5/2006 11:44:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Loan Projects
Contract/PO #
C153512
Contractor Name
Summit County
Water District
0
County
Summit
Bill Number
XB 99-999
Loan Projects - Doc Type
Contract Documents
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
45
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 />~ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Small Reservoir Feasibility Study <br /> <br />S-5 <br /> <br />Many of the shortages shown in Table S-4 are the result of the strict interpretation of <br />Green Mountain operating rules embodied in the basin model; exchanges from the Sales Pool <br />are prohibited when storage levels reach minimum targets and exchanges from the HUP are <br />prohibited when the total HUP release has reached the 66,000 AF /yr limitation. 1 Many of these <br />shortages would be mitigated by more flexible day-to-day application of operating policies and <br />by implementation of demand management measures in dry years (such measures are <br />contemplated in USBR contracts for Sales Pool allocations). Shortages associated with users <br />having insufficient Sales Pool allocations could be remedied by increasing the requested <br />allocation except for those months when Green Mountain contents are at minimum target <br />levels. <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />Other in-basin shortages are the result of modeled demands being slightly different than <br />diversion limits contained in water rights decrees or agreements. These shortages tend to be <br />frequent but small. Users showing shortages of this type should review their demand <br />projections and diversion limits to determine if there is true cause for concern. <br /> <br />... <br />~ <br /> <br />The shortages of most significance are those associated with diversion curtailment and <br />insufficient storage or physical supply; these shortages can only be remedied through . <br />development of additional supplies or storage facilities. Users showing shortages of this type <br />are Climax, Copper Mountain, Keystone, and the Town of Dillon. In the case of Climax, a <br />substantial amount of water is stored in tailings ponds and recycled; the basin model did not <br />simulate ore processing to this level of detail, instead representing only water stored under <br />storage decrees. Therefore, the shortages shown at Climax are probably somewhat overstated. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Curtailment shortages to Copper Mountain are a small component of overall shortages <br />to the snowrnaking demand there. They could most effectively be mitigated by making <br />relatively minor changes in diversion practices, such as increasing reliance on the proposed <br />Tenmile Creek pipeline or installing some high capacity wells. <br /> <br />- <br />ow <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />The curtailment shortages to Keystone demands, in conjunction with low instream flow <br />levels and water quality problems associated with mine drainage, suggest that further study of <br />water development measures on the upper Snake River may be justified. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Shortages to the Town of Dillon under ultimate demand conditions will require an <br />alternative water source. The Town has two such sources available in the Old Dillon Reservoir <br />system and in its allocation of Summit County subordination water. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />lIt should be noted that the 66,000 AF limitation on HUP releases induces shortages about once every <br />six years at Cameo; these shortages average about 20,000 AF and range up to 56,000 AF. These <br />shortages are somewhat less frequent than those estimated by the USBR in its modeling of Green <br />Mountain Reservoir Water Marketing operations but they indicate general agreement with USBR results. <br />The Sales Pool shortages iden\ified in the present study are not directly comparable to previous USBR <br />results because different Sales Pool demand patterns and locations have been used and because the <br />present study assumes Summit County users will rely first on their other water supply and exchange <br />sources. Although it was not a study objective to precisely replicate the results of previous modeling <br />work, the Blue River basin model produces results which are substantially in agreement with that work. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.