Laserfiche WebLink
<br />291h <br /> <br />iv <br /> <br />to studies made at the j'jarrows site. These detailed studies indicated that only <br />about 1,000 acres more irrigated land would be flooded at the Narrows site than <br />at the Fort ;,[organ site, that seepage problems would be smaller, and considerably <br />more flexibility would be possible with the iJarrows site. <br /> <br />The plan proposed by the Bureau at the time the .later Board suggested a re- <br />study consisted of a conventional type of dam across the river at tne Narrows site <br />providing a reservoir with a capacivJ of from 600,000 to 800,000 acre-feet; a spill- <br />" way with sufficient caracity to pass the spillway design flood; and a flood channel <br />extending from Bijou Creek to the reservoir. The const~uction a~d maintenance of a <br />flood channel from Bijou Creek to the iJarrows ](eservoir would be difficult and <br />expensive. After the problem was re-opened for st;,;d:i tile present plan of the <br />Bureau gradually evolved. <br /> <br />The present plan now contemplates a lo~g dam extending across the ~outh Platte <br />at the Narrows location and across Bijou Creek, which makes lll1necessary the flood <br />channel from that creek to the reservoir. 700,000 acre-feet of operating and flood <br />control storage is prOVided, and 818,000 acre-feet of surcharge storage to contain <br />the spillway basin flood. The spillway will be of nominal Gapacity. <br /> <br />The plan now proposed by the Bureau is sOlll1d from an engineering approach, is <br />in the best location, and is the best tYFe of structure for the site selected. <br /> <br />Originally, it was thought that a long dam across the ::iouth Platte River and <br />Bijou Creek would be a "sore thUJ:lb" but it now apj:ears to be a good idea because <br />of the super-storage pool which makes it possible to eliminate the large spillway <br />and also because it vlill be pOSSible, if necessary at some future date, to convert <br />some of the superstorage pool to conservation use. Further, it is cheaper to <br />build a higher dam than to build a large spil1\'lay. <br /> <br />If the ::itate is to accomplish full utilisation of the vffiters imported by the <br />Colorado-Big Thompson ~roject ar.d to squeeze all the wealth o~t of this L~ported <br />water, tllere is need for a channel reservoir on the lower reaches of the ::iouth <br />Platte River sometime in the future. To conform ITith the terms of the Colorado <br />River Compact, it ,vill be necessary for Colorado to consume within the state <br />essentially all of Colorado River water which may be imported to the east slope <br />drainage basins. However, SO long as surplus vraters are passing out of the Colo- <br />f rado Kiver Basin into the Gulf of Lower California, there apJOears to be no urgency <br />for the conservation of return flows for the above ,:'IT,:;',)se. <br /> <br />'i, The Narrows will provide no significant floor! :,,"~';ection along the Missouri <br />River, but it will provide material flood con'xol ~e"o':ics below the dam and will <br />allow the State to make use of flood waters for irr:.,,;,,'cion that are no\'{ escaping <br />the State unused. ' <br /> <br />Irrigation interests have ex}~essed fears concerning the effect of this <br />reservoir on existing water rights. Narrows Reservoir would be operated in accord- <br />ance with State water right laws and would not interfere with the use of water lll1der <br />existing water rights. Although multiple fillings of reservoirs have only in a <br />few cases been decreed, nevertheless, this is a common practice in the Uouth Platte <br />valley. It is 'understood that filings have been made lvith the State ~nciineer and <br />