Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br />, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />To date, Fry-Ark project water has been primarily a supplemental source of water supply for the <br />Lower Valley cities, towns, and water districts. Approximately 9,640 acre-feet of Fry-Ark water is <br />available each year on average. If diverted at Pueblo Dam into a pipeline, Fry-Ark water may be <br />sufficient to meet 45 percent ofthe year 2040 water needs of entities East of Pueblo. GEl's 1998 <br />Future Water and Storage Needs Assessment projected a demand for entities east of Pueblo of21,240 <br />acre-feet by the year 2040. The combination of other sources available to the entities east of Pueblo <br />and the Fry-Ark allocations may be adequate to meet future needs of most entities to the year 2040. It <br />may be possible for Lower Valley entities to divert their other water rights at Pueblo Reservoir <br />through a water. rights exchange or substitution. This would increase the pipeline delivery capacity. <br /> <br />A review of water rights (Fry-Ark, direct flow, and storage rights) will be performed during Task 2 by <br />Brown and Caldwell to identify innovative water management opportunities, water rights acquisition <br />needs, and storage requirements for water delivery by the Valley Pipeline. Water treatment needs will <br />be assessed based on available water quality data and EP A's Enhanced Surface Water Treatment <br />Rule. <br /> <br />Withdrawal of water at Pueblo Dam to meet Lower Basin municipal needs could change the river <br />flow regime to some degree and may impact Arkansas River water quality. Water quality data being <br />generated for the PSOP implementation and by the USGS will be used in this assessment, as <br />available. No new data collection or efforts are planned for the Study. <br /> <br />Task 3.0 - Alignment Screening Study <br />The 1972 USBR alignment will be reviewed and alternate alignments identified, based on <br />topographic, land use and ownership, and existing R-O-W and easements information. We plan to <br />screen three alignment alternatives: <br /> <br />1. A Highway 50 alignment, which generally would follow improvements being planned by <br />COOT. <br />2. An alignment on the north side of the Arkansas River, which could perhaps be a gravity <br />system with a low-head pipeline. <br />3. A third alignment selected to minimize overall pipeline length while avoiding potential right- <br />of-way issues as well as stream, highway, and road crossings. <br /> <br />Major advantages and disadvantages of each alignment will be identified, in addition to estimates of <br /> <br />overall costs. The original USBR concept involved delivery of treated water through a relatively high- <br /> <br />pressure pipeline that would fill storage tanks along the alignment and provide distribution system <br /> <br />pressure to entities receiving water. A lower-pressure gravity system on the north side of the river <br /> <br />might take advantage of less expensive plastic pipe (HOPE material), but may require booster <br /> <br />pumping by each entity to convey water for treatment. <br /> <br />Other alignment issues include the number and length of stream crossings, wetlands, possible <br /> <br />threatened and endangered species, and effects on fish and wildlife. The GEl Study Team's pipeline <br /> <br />alignment studies will consider these issues to the extent that data are readily available from <br /> <br />published sources and/or easily identifiable in the field. <br /> <br />. GEl Consultants, Inc. <br /> <br />2 <br />