Laserfiche WebLink
<br />002376 <br /> <br />. Bypassed diversions to storage would be credited toward a "paper fill" of the reservoir <br />and the reservoir would attempt to achieve a subsequent physical fill using a junior refill <br />right. This is essentially the administration agreed to by the SWAT team and used to <br />decree the Clinton Gulch, Green Mountain and Dillon refills. <br /> <br />. Bypassed diversions to storage would not be credited toward a paper fill under an <br />administrative policy that such bypasses are regulatory in nature and the reservoir would <br />attempt to fill later under its own priority. <br /> <br />. Bypassed diversions to storage would not be administered toward a paper fill of the <br />reservoir, but would be administered in Division 5 only, and under the PBO, as a <br />regulatory bypass that would not count against the fill of the reservoir. <br /> <br />This matter has been discussed with the State Engineer (James Lochhead personal <br />communication with Hal Simpson, February 15,2000) with the following outcome: <br /> <br />. These three potential administration policies will be further analyzed and included in the <br />modeling studies that will be completed as part of the various alternatives in Phase 2 of <br />this investigation. The effect of change in administration and using a junior refill right <br />will be modeled by assigning a junior priority date to the particular facility one day junior <br />to the applicable storage right. The facility will then continue its fill under that right after <br />the primary storage right has been accounted as "full." The sensitivity analysis will be <br />made by comparing this operation to a model run without the assigned junior priority. <br /> <br />. The various alternatives that involve bypassing diversions to storage should be modeled <br />with the alternative policies detailed above to determine the effects of the alternative <br />policies on other water rights and facility operations. Where possible, the costs <br />associated with these effects should be estimated. <br /> <br />. The results of these investigations and modeling studies should then be considered further <br />by the State Engineer in developing the administration policy that will be used for <br />bypassed diversions. <br /> <br />u <br /> <br />I' <br /> <br />2.2.2 No Restrictions on Alternatives Investigated <br /> <br />In this Phase 1 investigation, consideration of all alternatives was permitted; no alternatives were <br />summarily eliminated from investigation solely because of stakeholder opposition. <br /> <br />The focus of the alternatives is primarily on the reoperation of water management and storage <br />facilities located within the Upper Colorado River Basin, the interrelated hydropower operations <br />of east and west slope facilities, and the construction of new facilities, in order to determine the <br />feasibility of obtaining water for the endangered fishes from these sources in accordance with the <br />original scope of work for this investigation (Colorado Water Conservation Board, October 2, <br />1998). Improved conveyance facilities and efficiencies were considered with respect to canals, <br />but actual on-farm practices were not considered as an alternative to be investigated by this <br />study. <br /> <br />i <br /> <br />p:\data\gen\Ocwcb\ 18133\report\phase~ I \chap-l.doe <br /> <br />2-2 <br />