My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC05202
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
18000-18999
>
WSPC05202
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 11:42:44 AM
Creation date
10/9/2006 5:05:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
7630.625
Description
Wild and Scenic - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
State
CO
Basin
Statewide
Date
8/13/1981
Author
Various
Title
Comments - RE-South Platte River Basin Interim Report
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.
/
146
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 />O~2486 <br /> <br />Under the section entitled "G~ound Water", Page 30, references <br />are made to water use. For e.:ample, "an estimated 1.5 million <br />acre-feet of alluvial ground '.cater are used annually, principally <br />for irrigated agriculture (Toups Corporation, 1975) ," Page 31. <br />It is not clear whether this is consumptive use, water demand, <br />or actual diversions. <br /> <br />Present Water Uses - Page 36. The statement is made "early <br />in the 1900's the projects which could be oonstructed by <br />private interest were completed and irrigators began to look <br />to larger proposed U.S. Bureau of Reclamation projects such <br />as the Colorado-Big Thompson Project." This statement implies <br />that B1ere are no more projects in the South Platte Basin <br />which can be economically or effioiently developed by <br />private interests. Recent developments indicate that this <br />is not the case. The context of this statement should be <br />changed. <br /> <br />Undeveloped Streamflows, Page 49. The explanation of how <br />undeveloped streamflows were determined and subsequent <br />applioation of this approach are inadequate. A better <br />explanation is needed. <br /> <br />CHAPTER 4 - WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES <br /> <br />Evaluation Criteria,Page 53. The evaluation criteria used <br />in this report should be subject to review by the Advisory <br />Committee, including a thorough discussion of the application <br />of these criteria. <br /> <br />We have some reservations regarding statements such as "many <br />prospective impacts cannot be so easily measured in monetary <br />terms (Page 54)," and "others, such as fish and water quality <br />changes, cannot be assigned monetary values which would <br />corrunand general agreement." To the extent possible, impacts <br />should be defined in monetary terms, even if they a~e secondary <br />such as expenditures by "fishermen, and other recreationists <br />and water treatment costs." As a minimum, those impacts <br />which have monetary benefits and costs should be identified. <br /> <br />We believe that regional economic impacts should be included <br />quantitatively in this report. Regional economic impacts <br />are of primary importance in defining the feasibility of <br />projects in the South Platte Basin. Within the South Platte <br />Basin the regional economic impacts of individual projects <br />will vary, and that variation may be critical in some projects. <br />Sensitivity analyses might be conducted to identify those <br />projects which are most sensitive to regional economic impacts <br /> <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.