My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC04851
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
18000-18999
>
WSPC04851
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 11:41:15 AM
Creation date
10/9/2006 4:52:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8541
Description
San Luis Valley Project
State
CO
Basin
Rio Grande
Water Division
3
Date
3/17/1980
Author
CWCB
Title
San Luis Valley Project Closed Basin Division - 1980-1981 - Background and Status, March 17, 1980 - Closed Basin Division, San Luis Valley Project, Colorado
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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 />O'l'1qq''l <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />.' <br /> <br />Automation control <br />system for well pump <br />moLors <br /> <br />Not included <br /> <br />Included <br /> <br />/ <br /> <br />Conveyance channel <br />fishery <br /> <br />Potential <br /> <br />No justification for <br />one plan; no Public <br />Law 89-72 partici- <br />pant; not costed <br /> <br />Pumping plants <br /> <br />Not included <br /> <br />Two plants included, <br />one at San Luis Lake <br />and one at the <br />channel outfall <br /> <br />Construction period <br /> <br />8 years <br /> <br />10 years <br /> <br />Notes: <br /> <br />1/ <br /> <br />Does not include 8,500 acres outside Stage 5, for the western segment of <br />the proposed Mishak NWR. <br /> <br />2/ <br /> <br />Subsequent to the Nov. 1979 DPR, aquifer modeling indicates that 23 wells <br />should be added to Stage 1-2 to optimize objectivea (more wells with smaller <br />capacities to achieve water table drawdowns in an area of low aquifer <br />transmissivity). <br /> <br />3/ <br /> <br />Data are insufficient to determine: (a) if channel lining is required, i.e., <br />leakage questions; and, (b) if lined, the extent and type of channel lining. <br />For costing purposes in the DPR, an additional 20% of well pumping <br />energy costs were assumed for recirculating channel leakage. Economic <br />trade-offs for channel lining vs. recirculation have not been analyzed, <br />but construction cost estimates would increase if lining is used. <br /> <br />4/ <br /> <br />Mishak development costs, but without ground water supply, were included. <br /> <br />I, <br /> <br />I ' <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br />. --..- <br />.. <br /> <br />.-.~ . -, <br /> <br />I <br />,\,' ...1"', __. ._. ,,". ,._ '_ .. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.