Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />. <br /> <br />TRANSMITTAL <br /> <br />point up alternatives that might warrant further consideration under the <br />new planning methods. <br /> <br />Data useful in the investigation of the Basalt Project have been pro- <br />vided by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Forest Service, and the Fish <br />and Wildlife Service. Official reports have not been received from any <br />of these agencies. <br /> <br />Alternative Plans <br /> <br />In the studies, four widely differing development possibilities were <br />identified which might be undertaken to meet part or all of the projected <br />water needs of the project area. Most of the potentialities are centered <br />around use of water from Ruedi Reservoir on the Fryingpan River. This <br />reservoir has been constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation as a feature <br />of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project to provide replacement storage for wa- <br />ter diverted to the eastern slope of Colorado and to provide water for fu- <br />ture developments in Colorado. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The largest alternative studied, and the one analyzed in the feasi- <br />bility studies, is a plan for a gravity pipeline to convey water from <br />Ruedi Reservoir to the Basalt Project area. It would use storage water <br />from Ruedi Reservoir as well as surplus direct flows of Fryingpan River <br />and direct diversions of local streamflows in the Basalt area. The water <br />would be made available for irrigation, municipal and industrial use, and <br />outdoor residential use which is considered as use on lawns, gardens, and <br />small tracts of 5 acres or less. <br /> <br />An alternative similar to the gravity pipeline plan would utilize wa- <br />ter from Ruedi Reservoir storage and direct flows of Fryingpan River. Wa- <br />ter would be pumped to the project area rather than conveyed in a gravity <br />pipeline. Water would be made available for municipal and industrial use <br />but no irrigation would be provided. <br /> <br />Another possibility for use of Ruedi Reservoir water is actually only <br />a continuation of the United States' present practice of offering storage <br />water from Ruedi Reservoir for sale to local consumers. The water users <br />would provide their own collection and distribution facilities and no proj- <br />ect facilities would be constructed. <br /> <br />One alternative would not utilize Ruedi Reservoir water but would de- <br />velop local streamflows in the project area through enlargement of the <br />privately owned Missouri Heights Reservoir. This development would pro- <br />vide water for irrigation and outdoor residential use and would provide <br />some recreational benefits. No municipal and industrial water would be <br />,developed. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />2 <br />