7620

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 7620
• Author: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
• Title: Taylor Draw Reservoir Project Environmental Impact Statement
• USFW Year: 1982.
• USFW - Doc Type: Draft.
• Copyright Material: NO

T
2.1.1.3.6 Tha White River Basin as it will .exist at some time in the
future is the arena in which a number of undevelopoed decreed
conditional water rights and proposed projects will compete for water.
Presumably the White River Basin will eventually reach soma plateau or
ultimata level of development. For now, the existing uses of lower
• White River Basin water are by direct diversion for irrigation,
municipal, and industrial uses. Dynamic growth of both Rangely and
Rio Blanco County is anticipated with development of energy resources.
Direct diversion of river waters cannot fulfill the demands of future
growth as projected. River storage projects could supply the
agricultural, municipal, industrial, recreational, and flood control
requirements of can tinned growth.
2.1.1.4 Off-Stream Storage
2.1.1.4.1 Due to the topography of the immediate area, very few good
off-stream sites exist for potential dams. Those sites that could
accomodete dams would require dams with heights close. to 100-feat
[30.5 m) and wou~d ~rovide storage varying from 500 to 2000 acre-feet
[0.6 to 2.5 K 10 m ). Off-stream storage sites would require pumping
water from the White River several hundred feet into the reservoir.
The majority of the sites would be subject to heavy sediment
deposition which would decrease the storage capacity.
2.1.1.4.2 With the uncertainty of future power costs and
sedimentation problems, off-stream reservoir sites were not considered
as feasible alternatives to the Taylor Draw Reservoi r.
2.1.1,5 Groundwater Alternatives
2.1 ,1 .5.1 Use of groundwater for the Rangely municipal water supply
was considered as en alternative to a reservoir on the White River.
It should be noted that several advantages of the reservoi r
alternative have no counterparts in the groundwater development plans.
For instance, recreation and f lood-contra l features do not exist with
a groundwater supply source. Water supply re liability with
groundwater would be contingent on other competi ng wells and the
characteristics of the aquifer being used, such as transmissivity,
thickness, and recharge rata. The town~Rangely currently has no water
rights for underground sources. To protect its underground water
supply in the prior-appropriation system of Colorado Water Law, the
town may file for new water rights or attempt to transfer existing
surface rights to new underground points of diversion.
2.1.1.5.2 Two sources of groundwater to supply the town of Rangely
were examined as alternatives to the construction of a reservoir.
They are the White River alluvium deposit on which the town in built
and the sandstones and shales of the Mesa Verde group south of the
White River. Groundwater in deeper sedimentary formations such as the
Mencos shale and Dakota sandstone is highly saline and unacceptable
for muni ci pe L use. The Mencos shale i s approxi mete ly 3,000 feet [ 914
m) thick i n the Rangely area, and i s exposed north and south of the
-7-