WSP07806 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

..... ..........---:....:- '-_'.';..:!:!:~~_.' :''"-.~''''''''.._:~'Il . ..~tli.-E:'il...,."..lf" -~~T~ .. '. .'"'' ...- '1 Sun' lay, July 30, 1972 1;0 **THE DENVER POST I ~ ; . ..;.~".F~',~'--:J '.:. "I~' '.f\"\I~. ~. JI'I Colo. Water Loss Predicted Four upper C<llorado River hasin slates will lose water valued al $10 million to evaporation if Lake Powell behind Glen Canyon Dam in Arizona is filled, accord- ing to a C<llorado scientist. . Dr. James R. Guadagno says Colorado 'ought to drop its opposition 10 a suil I. brought in Ulah by conservationists to " keep Lake Powell's waters Crom intrud- ; ing into the Rainbow Bridge National Monument. In a report to the Colorado Opcn Space Council (COSC) Water Workshop, Dr. Guadagno says a resolution passed by the Colorado Legislature stating Colorado would lose 800,000 acre-Ceet oC waler an. . nually if Lake Powell isn't Cilled was i based on "erroneous information and in. I adequate study. . . ." Dr. Guadagno Is a metallurgIst em. o played by Wright-Mclaughlin El1!:ineers 01 : Denver, a nationally known water re.. I sourceS consulting ffrm. , He said an analysis oC waler ~orage in : Ihe Colorado River system ma4e by.the - U.S. Geological Survey In 1959 shows Ihal : limiting Lake Powell's elevatioq to 3,600 o leet would result In a 40,OOO-acre-CooI loss to Colorado whcn compared with a Cull, 3,700-Coot.lcvel reservoir. Conservationists say they favor limiting Lakc Powell's elevation 10 3,600 leet. Dr. Guadagno's reporl shows Ihat a Cull reservoir would lose 300,000 acre-feet 01 water more annurJlly to eV<1poration than olle filled 10 Ihe lower level. The 3oo.0DO-a'cre-fool evaporative loss would allll}Unl II} a $10 miltion loss at the $35 per acre-Coot price DC waler applied to Ihe projecl, he said. The loss would represent water that could have been used by Colorado, Wyo- ming, Utah and New Mexico, he said. The resolution also states that Colorado will lose $170 million in flUids "which would olherwise be available to the state oC Colorado under provisions of the C<llo- rado River Storage Project Act. . . .'t Dr. Guadagno said the executive di- rector oC Ihe Upper Colorado River C<lm- mission, IvaI GosHn, has u~ed 8 lower figure 01 $2.3 million a 'year loss lor the upper basin as a whole. By comparing the evaporative loss re- sulting C,'om a Cull reservoir '0 economic losses resulting Irom a less Cull reservoir, Dr. Guadagno coaclwies that "mling Ih. reservoir would then result in a net {inan~ cial loss to the upper basin which is larger than Ihe amount claimed as a gain." Evaporative losses oC water In the Colo. rado River aren't the only concerns being expressed by those concerned with waler management. Al a recent meeting, the CI}\orado River Water C<lnservation District was told salinity increases resulting Crom trans- mountain diversions will cost the Grand Valley $400,000 a year. , ~ . , c . ~.. .~ .:' o \ '. '" '\ '. :'.