My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP04470
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
4001-5000
>
WSP04470
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:55:37 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 12:22:46 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8281.600
Description
Colorado River Studies and Investigations -- Mesa-Delta M&I Groundwater Study
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
7/11/1984
Title
Agenda Item 12 - July 13 1984 Board Meeting -- Proposed Mesa-Delta M&I Groundwater Study
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Board Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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 />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />4. Alternate Sources of Water <br /> <br />o <br />(:.~ <br />(:) <br />CJl <br />-.J <br />00 <br /> <br />The pas mentions that alternative sources of M&I water <br />could be obtained from Blue Mesa Reservoir or by purchasing <br />available irrigation rights. Other likely sources which are <br />available and should be considered include Ruedi and Ridgway <br />Reservoirs. Given all the possibilities, this again serves <br />to emphasize that the study should be narrowly focused on <br />characterization of the aquifer. Study effort beyond that <br />would not appear to be warranted. <br /> <br />5. Existing Water Rights <br /> <br />The Bureau proposes to investigate whether the flow of <br />related springs and streams would be impacted by developing <br />the basalt aquifer. The need for this analysis is <br />reinforced by Jeris Danielson's comments (his memo to me is <br />attached). He recommends, and I agree, that if it is <br />decided to proceed with the study, the analysis of existing <br />water rights should be undertaken initially. He suggests <br />further that proposals for exchange and augmentation should <br />.beexamined. The outcome of this analysis may well <br />determine whether or not the study should proceed further. <br />This could be done with a limited expenditure of funds, <br /> <br />6. Fish and wildlife and-Recreational Concerns <br /> <br />The Bureau maintains that the conduct of the study <br />would not require significant access to isolated areas and <br />would have minimal impacts on fish and wildlife habitats and <br />recreational areas. This matter needs to be reviewed <br />conSidering the fact that the Bureau has programmed $470,000 <br />for drilling, geophysical and other field services during <br />the first three years of the study, <br /> <br />Study Funding <br /> <br />The FY 85 water and energy appropriations bill, which has <br />been passed by both the House and the Senate and is awaiting the <br />President's signature, contains $205,000 for the first year of <br />the study. The bill contains no requirement for non-federal <br />funding of the study. Indeed,lboth the House and Senate <br />Appropriations Committees' reports contain language to the effect <br />that: <br /> <br />pending enactment of authorizing legislation, <br />the Committee directs that no up-front <br />financing or cost sharing on reconnaissance <br />. phase studies, continuation of planning and <br />engineering, advanced or pre-construction <br />planning, and construction be implemented. <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />-3- <br /> <br />July 11, 1984 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.