WSP01428 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ 343~ The second alternative is a pIan to expand the Homestake Project along the right-of-way (ROW) initially issued by the U. S. Bureau of Land Management in 1954. A series of pipelines and tunnels would be con- structed in the wilderness to divert and transport water from Cross Creek and its tributaries, Fal1, Peterson and Whitney Creeks. This would be a gravity flow system and would provide water at the least cost per acre foot, but the environmental tradeoffs presently make this pIan less desirable. Colorado Springs and Aurora are attempting to reflect in their development the environmental concerns of their citizens and others who appreciate and enjoy the recreation provided by the nearby mountains. The third alternative analyzed is a gravity system which is a variation of the existing Homestake Phase II ROW, (Alternative 2). Under this alternative, a tunnel would be built to Cross Creek with pipelines connecting West Cross and East Cross to the main tunnel. Additionally, a pipeline would be constructed down the west side of Homestake Valley, picking up Peterson and Fall Creeks. The alternative has some adverse environmental consequences and for the same reason that the existing easement alternative is not currently considered as desirable, this alternative is also not as desirable as the Cities' proposal. The fourth alternative investigated is an upper valley reservoir site which would collect water from the Eagle River, Fall, Peterson and Cross Creeks into a reservoir 10cated on Homestake Creek immediately above the confluence of the Eagle River and Homestake Creek. This alternative would yield the most amount of water in the project area, however, it would require pumping of the water from the new reservoir to the existing Homestake reservoir. This alternative is also not as desirable as the Cities' proposal because of the requirement of building additional storage in an environmentally sensitive area (with potential 10ss of a scarce winter habitat for big game), significant pumping costs and the probable need to joint-venture the project with the Colorado River Water Conservation District, with whom past discussions have not been fruitful. The fifth alternative analyzed was a water trade proposal in which the Homestake water rights would be diverted from the Eagle River at a 10wer valley reservoir site upstream of the Town of Eagle. The stored water would be traded for a like volume of water at Green Mountain Reservoir, 10cated on the Blue River in Summit County. A pipeline and pumping station from Green Mountain Reservoir to Dil10n Reservoir would transport the traded waters to Dillon Reservoir for delivery through The Denver Water Board facilities to Aurora. Aurora would trade its Homestake I rights to Colorado Springs for exclusive use of the Homestake II water delivered by trade through Green Mountain and Dillon Reservoirs. A joint venture with the Denver Water Board, or at least an agreement providing for compensation for use of Denver's Dillon Reservoir, Roberts Tunnel and other facilities, would be required for this pIan. For several reasons this alternative is not as feasible as the Cities' proposal. The conceptual nature of the pIan and the fact that it would probably require a joint venture with the Denver Water Board prevent it from becoming available in the time period required. The Denver Water Board would have no need for such a joint venture project for 20 to 30 years. 3