WSP02305 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I REGIONAL ECONOMY WITHOUT PROJECT This statement is supported by the results of the Harris study, which showed that in terms of a population of 40,000, the ALP alternative is about the same cost as alternatives similar to Gronning Alternatives l(a) and 2(a). Harris showed that ALP cost was less than the alternatives similar to Gronning Alternatives l(a) and 2(a) for a population of 30,000. Gronning did not report alternative costs for a population of 40,000. It is interesting to note several assumptions used by Gronning in determining the storage required for the alternatives supplied by the city's existing Animas River water rights under no ALP conditions. It was assumed under no ALP that downstream water rights senior to the city would place a call on the river in the future, thus limiting city diversions. The downstream rights which could limit city diversions are the Southern Ute Tribe's water allocation included in the Settlement Agreement and other senior downstream water rights in Colorado and New Mexico primarily for irrigation. In terms of the Southern Ute allocation under the Settlement Agreement, it appears that based on the probable scenario developed on precedent and a legal opinion, Black & Veatch, Harris, and Gronning all assumed the entire allocation, including the M&I demand, would be derived from the Animas River. The estimated Southern Ute total demand on the Animas River used by Harris and Gronning is given in Table 3.5. TABLE 3.5 Southern Ute Indian Demand Animas River Month Flow (Acre-Feet) January 2,120 February 2,120 March 2,120 April 2,120 May 2,417 June 3,342 July 3,441 August 2,979 September 2,781 October 2,120 November 2,120 December 2,120 TOTAL 29,800 3-14