WSP03548 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

C'J '.... .- ~ r--' <=i,ll'lL- ~-, .... Gunnison dam alternatives aired Vl By TUPPER HULL ..r Seatinel staff writer t\. Three alternatives for development ""\ of the Gunnison River in the Dominguez ~yon near Whitewater were present- " ed by Grand Junction representatives " of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation " Wednesday. ~ About 55 area residents appeared at a public meeting at City Hall where Jay Franson and Lee Larson reviewed plans for the long sought.after project. Franson said a fourth alternative also was considered that would leave the canyon in its CUlTent state. Another al- ternative calls for development of rec- reation facilities along the river but, since no water storage capability, dam or power generating facility is _ in- volved, the Bureau of Reclamation would play no part in that plan. It was the two plans for differing size reservoirs in the canyon that attracted the greatest attention Wednesday. Two dam. coDsidered One alternative Franson said, calls for construction of a l7l-foot-high dam about one and a half miles south of Whi- tewater that would hold back a reser- voir of about 302,OOOacre feet of water. A second alternative dam project calls for construction of an 86-foot-high dam at the same location. Either project, if built, would contain a hydroelectric power generating piant on the east side of the l'eSf', voir. Water would be pumped on top JI In adjacent mesa during the night WI- en the de- mand for electricity is low, and re- leased dwing high demand periods. The larger reservoir would back ws- "ter up in the canyon for an estimated 261h miles and would have a surface ares of about 5,000 acres. The smaller reservoir would back water up for some 131h miles and would have a surface area of about 1,500 acres. Power from' either Both reservoir designs, according to Franson, would be accompanied by a power generating facility capable of producing 300,000 kilowatts of electrical power durin& the highest demand peri- ods. In the case of the smaller reser- voir, pumping of w:ater up hill would lower the surface of the reservoir by an estimated 2,3 feet. The water level of the larger reservoir would drop .7 feet because of the pwnping, according to figures compiled by the Bureau of Recl- amation. One of the most significant differen- ces in the two reservoir projects point- ed out by Franson Wednesday is the amount of water that would be avail. able for municipal and industrial use. In the larger reservoir, 40,000 acre feet of municipal and industrial water would become available while that fig- ure is cut in half in the smaller project. There would be no water available for agricultural use in the smaller reser- voir, Franson said. While some water would be available for agricultural use from the larger reservoir, he said, the Bureau of Reclamation does not cur- rently have any firm plans for where it can be used. That aspect of the project is still being investigated and Franson said the bureau is open to suggestions from area farmers. Cost dlffereDCe minimal In another comparison of the two proj- ects, Franson said the total cost for the larger project would be $167.4 million while the smaller project would cost an estimated $153.6 million;. Financing of the project, he said, would be much the same as the- method used to finance a private home with some entity of electric power users re- eeiving a loan from the government. It would be paid back over 50 years with revenue generated from the sale of pow- er and water. Monitoring the meeting was Duane Jensen, utilities engineer for Grand Junction. In response to a question, Jen- sesn said the City of Grand Junction would like to purchase 20,000 acre feet of reservoir water. The Ute Water Con- servancy District, a major supplier of domestic water in the Grand Valley, has also requested 20,000 acre feet, Jen- sen said. The Bureau of Reclamation should pick one of the alternatives by the end of this year, Franson said. The bureau will then prepare a report on the project which is due to be submitted to Con- gress by March of 1978. Congress can then act on whetber or not it wants toap- propriate funds ofr the construction of the project. Both of the reservoir projects met with favorable public reaction Wednes. day and Franson said the speed with which Congress acts on the project de. pends much on public support for it. Several members of the audience said water for use on the Western Slope is in short supply and dwindling and urged speedy completion of the project.