Laserfiche WebLink
<br />r, <br /> <br />. . <br /> <br />August 19, 1999 <br /> <br />0' <br /> <br />1540 <br />ARKANSAS BASIN FUTURE WATER AND STORAGE NEEDS ASSESSMENT <br /> <br />MODELING APPROACH TO EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED <br />STORAGE ALTERNATIVES <br /> <br />As a part of the Arkansas Basin Water and Storage Needs Assessment, the Modeling Subgroup is <br />currently evaluating the benefits and impacts of the storage alternatives currently being <br />considered by project participants. This work is an extension of the SECWCD/Arkansas Basin <br />Future Water Storage Needs Assessment (GEl, 1998) which identified a total of 173,100 ac-ft of <br />new storage being requested by entities of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy <br />District (SECWCD). Table 1 provides a breakdown of storage needs by District entities. <br /> <br />TABLE 1 <br />SECWCD STORAGE NEEDS <br /> <br />Future Storage Requirements (SECWCD/Arkansas River Future Water and Storage <br />Needs Assessment, GEl Consultants, Inc., December 10, 1998) <br /> <br />Entity Storage Requirement (aO <br />Colorado Springs Utilities 45,000 <br />Other FV A entities 22,000 <br />Entities West of Pueblo 3,700 <br />Florence 2,300 <br />Winter Water Program 40,000 <br />Storage to Regulate Replacement Water for Well Pumping 26,000 <br />Subtotal (A) 139,000 <br />Pueblo Board of Water Works 20,000 <br />Public Service Company 5,000 <br />Pueblo West Metropolitan District 5,500 <br />St. Charles Mesa 3,600 <br />Subtotal (B) 34,100 <br />Total 173,100 <br />NOTE: subtotal (A) represents specific storage needs addressed in the GEl study. Subtotal <br />(8) is the storage need identified by water supply entities based on their own planning <br />efforts. <br /> <br />In the previous GEl study District entitles cooperatively participated in the evaluation of <br />alternatives to meet the district-wide storage needs within the Arkansas River Basin. This <br />evaluation process utilized a full range of criteria including environmental concerns, social <br />impacts, recreation potential, fish and wildlife, water quality, technical challenges. cost, and the <br />size and location of the proposed storage facility. Enlargements of existing reservoirs were <br />generally considered preferable to the construction of new dams. Following an initial screening, <br />which eliminated approximately half of the alternatives, a systematic, multi-criteria decision <br />analysis process was used to arrive at eight alternatives which were recommended for further <br /> <br />I <br />