Laserfiche WebLink
<br />include supplemental irrigation and expansion of new irrigation. <br />However, this water cannot be reallocated to agricultural use on <br />a long-term basis. <br />2.27 It is estimated by the WGFD that a reservoir in the Little <br />Snake River Basin could supply a r~et increase of 8,906 visitor <br />days per' year (fonder, 1985). .Additionally, development of <br />camping and picnicking facilities could enhance the recreational <br />opportunities available at the reservoir. <br />NEED FOR FLOOD CONTROL <br />2.28 The lack of storage reservoirs in the Little Snake River <br />basin currently makes it impossible to control flooding in the <br />basin. -Even with completion of the proposed Sandstone Dam, some <br />periodic flooding would continue to occur without additional <br />storage in the basin to reduce ,flood peaks. A flood in the <br />spring of 1984 in the Little Snake River Valley resulted in <br />estimated agricultural damage of $170,860 to ,800 irrigated acres <br />along Savery Creek and $1,186,660 to 8,000 irrigated acres along <br />the Little Snake River from Savery to Baggs (SWEC, 1986b). SWEC <br />(1986b) computed average annual agricultural Flood damage <br />estimates of $3,400 along Savery Creek, and $121,500 along the <br />Little Snake River. Applying a similar procedure for non- <br />agricultural damages resulted in $161,000 of additional average <br />annual damages. <br />2.29 Studies by SWEC (1986b) indicate that following development <br />of the proposed Sandstone project, 100-year flood flows would be <br />up to 1.3 feet lower thap the. predevelopment elevations along <br />• <br />2-10 <br />