My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC07585
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
20000-20849
>
WSPC07585
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:11:44 PM
Creation date
10/9/2006 6:33:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
7630.450
Description
Wild and Scenic - Piney River
State
CO
Basin
Statewide
Date
6/1/1973
Title
Wild and Scenic - Piney River - Review and Proposal for Inclusion of the Piney River in the Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act - Preliminary Draft
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.
/
32
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 />01)1980 <br /> <br />EPWPA VIEW OF DWB EAGLE-COLORADO <br />PROJECT (continued) <br /> <br />PAGE 2 <br /> <br />I <br />~est <br />\ <br />\ <br /> <br />The Denver Water Department will still dry up a great portion of the <br /> <br />Slope. <br /> <br />What the Denver Water Board has in mind by asking the environmentalists <br /> <br />and West Slope towns to help pay for additional costs is not clear at this <br /> <br />point unless they are talking about the long-range pumping costs that will <br /> <br />be incurred by having to pump the water 1,800 vertical feet up from the <br /> <br />Eagle River into Piney Lake. In any case, by asking anyone other than the <br /> <br />water users to pay for obtaining the water, they are demonstrating an <br /> <br />audacity usually thought to be reserved for the powers in heaven. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />James Ogilvie's remarks about the Denver \~ater Department "skimming <br /> <br />off the peak flot.,s" are misleading in that they do not consider the total <br /> <br />picture. If the Denver Water Department were the only one removing water <br /> <br />from the streams he would be accurate in saying that adequate water would <br /> <br />be left in the streams for minimum fish flows. Unfortunately, the Denver <br /> <br />Water Department is junior to several other water rights holders who are <br /> <br />also removing water from the streams. The end result is that the minimum <br /> <br />flows are inadequate for any purpose. A classic example of this situation <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />occurred this past summer on the Rio Blanco River near pagosa <br /> <br />Springs, <br />. I <br />flood control <br /> <br />Colorado. The Bureau of Reclamation built what they called a <br /> <br />project which in reality was a transmountain diversion supplying water to <br /> <br />Albuquerque, New Mexico. All of the fish died in the Rio Blanco and the <br /> <br />Navajo Rivers, wells dried up and turned sour, and the ranchers had a <br /> <br />choio.. between l"aving wat"r in their High Line irrigation ditch, or in the <br /> <br />river, but not both. As a result they let their pastures and hay fields <br /> <br />dry up but were still unable to save the river. <br /> <br />One further observation is worth making in regard to down-stream obli- <br /> <br />gations. Colorado is required by Federal law to allow a certain amount of <br /> <br />wnt'"T' to flow put: of pt::\t'.c inf:o Cali f('J:ni.o.. Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.