WSP05529

• File Number: 8149.700
• Description: Miscellaneous Small Projects and Project Studies - Homestake Project
• State: CO
• Basin: Arkansas
• Water Division: 2
• Date: 10/29/1982
• Author: various
• Title: Documents related to the Homestake Project
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

.

343,1

(2) Review and Comment On the Proposal By Appropriate Agencies of the
Colorado Department of Natural Resources and the Colorado Department
of Health.

See Attachments 4 & 5 (Note: These attachments will be provided
as soon as possible after these agencies have had an opportunity to
review this 1041 Application, which is being submitted by the
Cities simultaneously to these agencies and the county.)

(3) Alternative Potential Site Locations and Degree of Feasibility of
Each.

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) prepared by the U.S.
Forest Service, listing Eagle County as a cooperating agency, evaluated
ten alternatives. These alternatives are described in Chapter 2 of the
DEIS.

Of the ten alternatives, the following four alternatives were eliminated
from any detailed study because they were not feasible for meeting the
water needs expected by 1992:

(1) Lower Valley Reservoirs, such as the Eagle-Colorado Project
proposed by the Denver Water Board, were eliminated from detailed
study as infeasible because of timing problems and the need to
joint venture with unwilling participants;

(2) Water conservation, was deemed infeasible as an alternative to
new water supply primarily because water conservation activities
are now occurring in the Cities and will continue to occur in the
future, having the net effect of minimally delaying but not entirely
avoiding the project need;

(3) Groundwater utilization was eliminated due to the fact that
future development of groundwater supplies is very limited and is
considered to be an additional water resource, if anything, and not
in lieu of existing water rights;

(4) Growth management was eliminated because population growth in
the Cities is a variable that is independent of the development of
the Homestake Water Project. Additionally, both Cities subscribe
to controlled growth management to the extent possible.

Six alternatives were analyzed in detail. Although five of the six
alternatives possess varying degrees of feasibility, the most environ-
mentally desirable and viable is the proposed alternative of the Cities
which is the subject of this Application.

The first alternative of "No Action" was analyzed and is not feasible
due to the fact that population growth in the cities will continue and
that the fiduciary responsibility of the cities is to plan for and
provide services in a timely manner to accomodate this population growth.

2