CRDSS_Task1_15-24_SmithForkAreaWaterRights_CrawfordWCD

• Title: CRDSS Task 1.15-24 - Water Rights Planning Model - Smith Fork Area Water Rights - Crawford Water Conservancy District
• Description: This memorandum describes the operation of the major irrigation water rights that divert from the Smith Fork of the Gunnison and that are used to irrigate lands in the vicinity of Crawford, Colorado.
• Decision Support - Doc Type: Task Memorandum
• Date: 1/9/1995
• DSS Category: Surface Water
• DSS: Colorado River
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Contract/PO #: C153658, C153727, C153752
• Grant Type: Non-Reimbursable
• Bill Number: SB92-87, HB93-1273, SB94-029, HB95-1155, SB96-153, HB97-008
• Prepared By: Riverside Technology inc.

delivered as "flow through" to the Grandview Canal. This bypass does not count against the Grandview's
project water allocation.
Crawford Reservoir Reservoir Operations
Crawford Reservoir generally fills from November 1 through mid-April, and is often full by mid-March.
The reservoir fills via the Smith Fork Feeder Canal and by storing native flows and irrigation return
flows in Iron Creek during the non-irrigation season. During the winter months, the feeder canal will
often physically dry up the Smith Fork. The only downstream winter uses are stock water diversions in
the Clipper and Grandview Ditches. Most of the stock water demand is satisfied by accretions to the
stream below the head gate of the feeder canal. Project water in Crawford Reservoir is released upon
request of the individuals owning rights in the reservoir. Water is released as necessary to supplement
irrigation demands either directly or by exchange. Releases will often extend into October.
Operation of the Smith Fork Rights in the CRDSS Program MODSIM
The following paragraphs describe the key assumptions used in the CRDSS wat er rights planning model
(MODSIM) to simulate the operations of the Smith Fork water rights
For the CRDSS MODSIM model, the Smith Fork is divided into four separate demands: (1) the
?
Upper Smith Fork Project demand, which includes the agricultural demands for the Upper
Ditches, i.e. the Needle Rock, Saddle Mountain, Virginia, and Daisy, and which can receive
project water from Crawford Reservoir by exchange; (2) the aggregated Upper Smith Fork
water rights that do not receive project water; (3) the aggregated Lower Smith Fork water rights
that do not receive project water; and (4) the Lower Smith Fork Project Demand, which
includes the agricultural demands of the Clipper, Grandview, and the project's Aspen Canal.

Using topographic maps, acreage data from the CRDSS consumptive use group, and
?
information from interviews with the CWCD Manager, the irrigated acreage values presented in
Table 3 were used to establish the irrigation demands.
TABLE 3
IRRIGATED ACREAGE VALUES
IRRIGATED
ACREAGE
DEMAND NODE
1.Upper Smith Fork Project3,630
2.Upper Smith Fork Non- 266
project
3.Lower Smith Fork Non- 505
project
4.Lower Smith Fork Project :
Clipper/Aspen Canal 3,598
Grandview 3,164
The Grandview demand was computed separately so that diversions from Iron Creek, pursuant
?
to the Aspen Ditch water rights, could be properly allocated to demand.
5
A275 01.09.95 1.15-24 Fosha, Hyre