Laserfiche WebLink
<br />002493 <br /> <br />The report states, "possible '.'xpansions of Antero, Eleven <br />Mile Canyon, or Cheeseman Res~rvoirs were not considered, <br />given the limited geographical scope delineated in the plan <br />of study (Woodward-Clyde Cons'.ll tants, 1981) " Once again, <br />all the al terna tives were not. considered. <br /> <br />The assessment indicated that expansions of Chatfield, Gross, <br />Carter Lake, Horsetooth, and Jackson Lake appear to be <br />feasible and that this would result in additional oonsumptive <br />use of 24,300 acre-feet, or 13 percent of the undeveloped <br />streamflow for the South Platte River. Lumping all these <br />together tells very little about the benefits of anyone <br />of them. <br /> <br />The discussion of Carter Lake and Horsetooth Reservoir <br />expansions are conducted without referenoe to references. <br />We would like to know the source(s) of the information. <br /> <br />Delivery of Poudre River water to Horsetooth Reservoir would <br />require construction of a major diversion and delivery <br />system. This does not seem to have been taken into account. <br /> <br />Input from the Technical Advisory Committee indicates that this <br />is an ill-conceived alternative which should be dropped <br />from consideration. <br /> <br />Alternative 5 - Minimal Development. <br />Alternatives 4 and 1_ <br /> <br />See comments on <br /> <br />Alternative 6 - Off-Channel Storage of Main Stem Flows. This <br />alternative considers additional off-channel sites for major <br />reservoirs including West Plum Creek, Hudson Cactus Hill, <br />and Wildcat Reservoir. This alternative is flawed by the fact <br />that construction costs for West Plum Creek which would <br />provide municipal supplies are lumped together with three <br />reservoirs which would provide agricultural supplies. These <br />need to be evaluated individually. A low rate of return, <br />0.4 percent, is indicated for this alternative. However, <br />the West Plum Creek Reservoir would include flood control <br />storage, and no benefit has been allowed for this. <br /> <br />Alternative 7 - Storage of Lower Tributary Flows. <br />at this time. <br /> <br />No conunent <br /> <br />Alternative 8 - Downstream Main Stem Storage. This alternative <br />is, in essence, the Narrows Project. As described in this <br />report the Narrows Reservoir would have a total storage <br />capacity of 973,000 acre-feet, and would supply an estimated <br />150,000 acre-feet of water annually. If used for the <br />irrigation of new lands, an average of 80,000 acre-feet of <br />undeveloped streamflow could be consumptively used on an <br /> <br />9 <br />