My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP05529
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
5001-6000
>
WSP05529
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:18:45 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 1:05:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
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
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
56
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 />343~ <br /> <br />The second alternative is a plan to expand the Homestake Project along <br />the right-of-way (ROW) initially issued by the U. S. Bureau of Land <br />Management in 1954. A series of pipelines and tunnels would be con- <br />structed in the wilderness to divert and transport water from Cross <br />Creek and its tributaries, Fall, Peterson and Whitney Creeks. This <br />would be a gravity flow system and would provide water at the least cost <br />per acre foot, but the environmental tradeoffs presently make this plan <br />less desirable. Colorado Springs and Aurora are attempting to reflect <br />in their development the environmental concerns of their citizens and <br />others Who appreciate and enjoy the recreation provided by the nearby <br />mountsins. <br /> <br />The third alternative analyzed is a gravity system which is a variation <br />of the existing Homestake Phase II ROW, (Alternative 2). Under this <br />alternative, a tunnel would be built to Cross Creek with pipelines <br />connecting West Cross and East Cross to the main tunnel. Additionally, <br />a pipeline would be constructed down the west side of Homestake Valley, <br />picking up Peterson and Fall Creeks. The alternative has some adverse <br />environmental consequences and for the same reason that the existing <br />easement alternative is not currently considered as desirable, this <br />alternative is also not as desirable as the Cities' proposal. <br /> <br />The fourth alternative investigated is an upper valley reservoir site <br />which would collect water from the Eagle River, Fall, Peterson and Cross <br />Creeks into a reservoir located on Homestake Creek immediately above the <br />confluence of the Eagle River and Homestake Creek. This alternative <br />would yield the most amount of water in the project area, however, it <br />would require pumping of the water from the new reservoir to the existing <br />Homestake reservoir. This alternative is also not as desirable as the <br />Cities' proposal because of the requirement of building additional <br />storage in an environmentally sensitive area (with potential loss of a <br />scarce winter habitat for big game), significant pumping costs and the <br />probable need to joint-venture the project with the Colorado River Water <br />Conservation District, with Whom past discussions have not been fruitful. <br /> <br />The fifth alternative analyzed was a water trade proposal in Which the <br />Homestake water rights would be diverted from the Eagle River at a lower <br />valley reservoir site upstream of the Town of Eagle. The stored water <br />would be traded for a like volume of water at Green Mountain Reservoir, <br />located on the Blue River in Summit County. A pipeline and pumping <br />station from Green Mountain Reservoir to Dillon Reservoir would transport <br />the traded waters to Dillon Reservoir for delivery through The Denver <br />Water Board facilities to Aurora. Aurora would trade its Romestake I <br />rights to Colorado Springs for exclusive use of the Romestake II water <br />delivered by trade through Green Mountain and Dillon Reservoirs. A <br />joint venture with the Denver Water Board, or at least an agreement <br />providing for compensation for use of Denver's Dillon Reservoir, Roberts <br />Tunnel and other facilities, would be required for this plan. <br /> <br />For several reasons this alternative is not as feasible as the Cities' <br />proposal. The conceptual nature of the plan and the fact that it would <br />probably require a joint venture with the Denver Water Board prevent it <br />from becoming available in the time period required. The Denver Water <br />Board would have no need for such a joint venture project for 20 to 30 <br />years. <br /> <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.