WSP05176

• File Number: 8276.100
• Description: Grand Valley Unit - Colorado River Basin Salinity Project
• State: CO
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Water Division: 5
• Date: 4/15/1978
• Title: News Articles/Press Releases -- April 1978 - August 1992
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: News Article/Press Release

t"-
oo
00
(\J
c..-
c

CONCERNS, ISSUES, AND SUGGESTIONS

for ease of presentation, the concerns and issues
identified by meeting participants were cate-
gorized, and in some cases, consolidated and
rephrased. The number of dots after each item
represents an indication of significance by the
public.

IDENTIFIED CONCERNS AND ISSUES

Systems Combining

Administration and water rights

Water right and administrative problems with
combining (5 dots)

Concern over combining Grand Valley Canal into
Government Highline; this increment has legal
problems and is impractical (2 dots)

What happens to my share of water (Grand
Valley)? (no dots)

How will water onto the land he measured? (2
dots)

Administrative costs and water rights (6 dots)

will paid up water rights on the Price and Stub
canals be affected by the combining alternative?
(no dots)

Grand Valley Canal has water rights U,2 on
river) and they won't relinquish their rights (1
dot)

Who would the water rights belong to if all
systems were combined? (6 dots)

Combining plans
administratively

major

would
(2 dots)

be

challenge

Government Control

Desire to keep government control out (3 dots)

I f we're going to have too much government
control and hassle, the other option might be
for Reclamation to do nothing (no dots)

Why should the private systems get
the Federal government? (2 dots)

involved with

With a combined system, Government is going to
have majorltotal control of private water (no
dots)

Other

Concerned about new R-O-W necessary (no dots)

plans may reduce diversion requirements--if so,
what happens to water? (3 dots)

Will there be pressure
irrigate the higher ground
are watering? (no dots)

or head
when lower

enough to
irrigators

Grand Valley Unit, Stage Two
Newsletter - January 1983
Attachment 1

We may end up with less water on the land (no dots)

The cost of electric pumping will raise price of
water (no dots)

Will there be any re-regulation of water shares
presently held? Will the existing free-loaders on
the system be charged? (2 dots)

will water stay with the land? (Water is what makes
the land valuable) (no dots)

Now in private system, water can be sold away from
the land (no dots)

will it
tenance,

anything except
pay now? (2 dots)

main-

cost
which

the users
is all they

Who will pay the pumping
It's all gravity fed now.

cost up to the Stub Canal?
(1 dot)

Combining alternative would be far too costly for
Mesa County Ditch (no dots)

Tunnel too small to carry water if all systems are
combined (1 dot)

lncreased entrainment of fish into canals with
increased withdrawal at the Government Highline
Canal (no dots)

Canal Seepage Reduction

Canal lining

will the membrane lining cut down the existing bank
erosion along the canals and laterals? (1 dot)

Need to compare
Reclamation and 5CS

design specifications
(2 dots)

between

Barrier

Technical concerns with barrier. Salt water has
been discovered at substantial depths through gas
drilling (3 dots)

With the barrier alternative, there
salt in soil and a higher water table

would be
(l dot)

more

The barrier method is more expensive and would cause
problems. A higher water table would result along
any canal where you put barriers (no dots)

Lateral Improvement

will the
in the
problems
dots)

increased flow (water not lost to seepage)
lined laterals cause erosion or other
in any unlined ditches or laterals7 (no

Most of the
already lined

laterals on Grand Valley system are
(no dots)