WSP08839 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I PARSHALL PROJECT, COLORADO The two plans ~lere appraised for this status report only on the basis of providing irrigation ~later to lands in the area serviceable from the Williams Fork River. Evaluations were not made of project effects on flood control, recreation, or fish and wildlife. Fish and wildlife aspects of the project that should receive attention in future detailed studies are discussed in a memorandum report of the Regional Director, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, bound at the back of' this report. No attempt has been made in this limited study to evaluate project irrigation benefits nor to determine the payment capacity of' the irriga- tors. It is concluded f'rom general observations and comparisons, however, that the larger plan based on a more abundant water supply would be suf- fiCiently attractive to justify further investigation, but that the smaller plan may not be economically justified under existing conditions. Neither of the plans descr!bed in this report would be as large as the plan f'or the Parshall project presented in a 1954 status report by the Bureau of Reclamation. The earlier report, entitled "Cliffs-Divide Project," constituted a general inventory of' development possibilities in the Colorado River Basin above Grand Junction, Colo. Current plans are smaller because part of the development contemplated in 1954 has been accomplished through enlargement of the Big Lake ditch and less water is available because of' expanded use by the city and county of Denver. Pro~ect Plans and Costs Plans of development The two plans involve essentially the same construction features except that the capacities of the reservoir and of one of the distribu- tion canals Would be larger in Plan I than in Plan II. Under both of the plans the Ute Park Reservoir would be constructed about midway along the course of the ~lilliams Fork River by means of a dam about 10 miles upstream from the upper end of' the existing Williams Fork Reservoir. Water would be released from the Ute Park Reservoir as needed for irri- gation. It would be distributed to the land through the potential Skylarl;: and ParShall Flats Canals and throUl",h the existing Big Lake ditch. Some natural flows of Williams Fork River would be diverted for project purposes without storage. The SkYlark Canal would head at the reservoir and extend in a general northwest direction serving lands on the west side of the river that are above the Big Lake ditch. Along its course it '"ould intercept surplus runoff of Lost, Mule, Skylark, Battle, Bull Run, and Cooper Creeks. smell tributaries of Williams Fork River, and would also distribute this water to project lands. In the larger Plan I some lands above the Skylark Canal 5