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

reservoir water right would be extremely difficult to quantify.
Evaporative Losses would be subtracted from water sales. The town of
Rangely has expressed a desire to store enough water to serve 10,000
people at a consumptive rate of 155 gallons per person per day [587
L/person] or 1,735 AF (2.2 X 106 m3) per year. With this assumption
the water budget of the reservoir for the year 1990 and 2014 would be
as follows
Year Yea r
Item 1990 2014
Recreation/Dead Pool 2100 AF 1434 AF
Sedimentataion 1730 AF 7395 AF
Rangely 1735 AF 1735 AF
Other Water Sales 8235 AF 3236 AF
It is possible that the yield from the reservoir could change if
another party, such as the town of Rangely or an oil company. were to
transfer a water right to the reservoir site. At this time it is not
possible to predict how the depletion pattern might change. The
change would- depend on the seniority of the right transfered and the
conditions imposed by the State of Colorado.
2.2.3.4 Addition of a reservoir would affect the "fi rm annual yield"
of the White River in the vicinity of Rangely. Firm yield is the
minimum amount of water that could be diverted from the river on a
continuous basis over the year. Without a reservoir to supplement
withdrawals in ti mes of drought, the firm yield wou ld be the lowest
r~corded f Low in 6th driest year, 62 cfs or 44, 930 AF per year [1 .75
m /s or 56 X 10 m ]. This diversion would completely deplete the
flow in the White River during a draught year. A firm yield with the
reservoir in place has teen established for maintaining a minimum
bypass of 200 cfs (5.65 m /s] or the incoming flow, whichever is less.
T~e intention is not to cause the flow to be less than 200 cfs [5.65
m /s] during fi L li ng. At most ti mes the release from the reservoi r
will be the same as the incoming flow. See Figure 5-1. 5-2, and 5-3
for the projected effect on downstream flow due to filling of the
th~t reservoi r wou ld be 29 cfs or 21 ,240 AF per year (0.83 m /s or 26 X
10 m ].(26) The implementation of Alt~rn~tive A could actually
result in a depletion of 21,240 AF (26 X 10 m ] from the White Ri er
instead of the actual reservoir capacity of 13,800 AF [17 X 106 m~].
Because of the nature of water Laws in the State of Colorado. for this
to occur some party or the appli cent would need to use "direct flow"
water rights in the project area. The direct flow water rights would
be uti li zec as long as they were in priority and stored water from e
reservoir would be used only during those periods when direct flow was
unavai table. Assuming an early 1960's decree for direct flow, the
reservoir. With the above assumption, the incremental firm3yield with
-15-