Laserfiche WebLink
<br />o <br />C() <br />-C\I <br />o <br />C~ <br />c <br /> <br />-1~~i@~.~jy.,c-~~.~~i)-:\J\ <br />~ ,,' 0';' . <br /> <br />I. q, ,,( <br />\\ ~-- ~ <br />~>;~}R~~~~~9 ~.~., <br /> <br />'--'?~,'<\I'\~\.O\. GLENWOOD DOTSERO SPRINGS UNIT - C.R.t.J'.Q.I.P. .'\ <br />C......"'\.';::-~... . <br />Bureau of Reclamation .:..;.- <br />Grand Junction Projects Office <br />764 Horizon Drive <br />Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 NEWSLETTER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .July 1981 <br /> <br />(303) 243-4992 <br /> <br />PUBLIC l'iEETING <br /> <br />WATER RIGHTS <br /> <br />The third Public Involvement event in the <br /> <br />Correspondence was received from the Colorado <br /> <br />Glen-Dot Plan of Study was a public meeting on <br /> <br />River Water Conserv~tion District which clearly <br /> <br />June 17, 1981, at the Glenwood Springs Holiday Inn. <br /> <br />outlined the problems that need to be resolved <br /> <br />The purpose of the meeting was to present: alterna- <br /> <br />about water rights and the Glen-Dot Unit. Two <br /> <br />tive plans and obtain public comments about poten- <br /> <br />questions the District posed were: <br /> <br />tial impacts. <br /> <br />1) How can holders of existing water rights <br /> <br />About 30 participants provided a number of <br /> <br />be protected without removing significant <br /> <br />oral and written questions and comments. Written <br /> <br />amounts of water from agriculture or <br /> <br />comments with the number of marks by participants <br /> <br />depleting Western Colorado's limited <br /> <br />to measure significance are included in this news- <br /> <br />amount of water in storage? <br /> <br />letter. Many of the comments are answered also. <br /> <br />2) How can stream depletions resulting from <br /> <br />This input will be a va~uable aid in selecting the <br /> <br />collection and treatment of saline water <br /> <br />recommended plan this fall. <br /> <br />be equitably shared by the Upper and <br /> <br />Some of the oral questions at the meeting <br /> <br />Lower Basin States? <br /> <br />follow: <br /> <br />Although there are costs included in the <br /> <br />Q: What would happen to the river. agricul- <br /> <br />alternatives for replacement water, the questions <br /> <br />tural land, and surrounding vegetation <br /> <br />raised are the heart of the issue. The planning <br /> <br />if a brine pipeline should break? <br /> <br />team members and others should voice their ideas so <br /> <br />A: The pipeline would contain shutoff valves <br /> <br />the team can put together the best alternative. <br /> <br />spaced at intervals (longest about 10 <br /> <br />RAF1F.~S~ CONCEfu~ <br /> <br />miles) with sensing devices that v,'(luld <br /> <br />A recommendation was made that three springs <br /> <br />\ <br /> <br />monitor breaks. In the event of a break, <br /> <br />(GIG, G20, and GIOO) be left for use by rafters <br /> <br />valves would be activated to shut off the <br /> <br />and others. At an annual downstream damage rate of <br /> <br />pipeline. <br /> <br />Hence, damage would be 10cal- <br /> <br />$470,OOO/IlIg/L, the mOT)etary loss for not collecting <br /> <br />ized nnd restricted to that caused by the <br /> <br />these springs would b~ $1.4 million annually. <br /> <br />water in the ruptured section of the line. <br /> <br />Solutions to the problem might be: <br /> <br />Q: \.fuere would a brine pipeline be placed in <br /> <br />. Collecting these springs during off-season <br /> <br />Glenwood Canyon? <br /> <br />or off-use times. <br /> <br />A: The pipeline could be placed under the <br /> <br />. Collecting the Springs after use. <br /> <br />highway sllOulders. A much less desirable <br /> <br />. Leave some of the smaller springs for rafter <br /> <br />location would be along the river bank. <br /> <br />use. <br />