My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC07347
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
19000-19999
>
WSPC07347
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:10:30 PM
Creation date
10/9/2006 6:25:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8240.200.39.C
Description
Colorado River Threatened-Endangered - RIPRAP - CFOPS - Water Availability
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
9/1/2000
Author
Brown and Caldwell
Title
Phase 1 Coordinated Facilities Water Availability Study for the Endangered Fishes of the Upper Colorado River - 09-01-00
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.
/
117
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 />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 />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.