Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Final Draft - Preferred Storage Options Plan <br />Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District <br />June 8, 2000 <br /> <br />I. Examine the opportunity for Project re-operations given the inflow and <br />demand schedules established for Project and non-Project entities. <br /> <br />2. Examine the operations of the additional storage space for each of the <br />alternatives. <br /> <br />3. Determine if there are any "fatal flaws" or hydrologic limitations for any <br />of the potential storage alternatives. <br /> <br />4. Determine the impact of existing and proposed operations on Arkansas <br />River flows and reservoir levels. <br /> <br />5. Determine the most effective and efficient alternatives for storage of <br />additional water in the Arkansas River basin. <br /> <br />A computer simulation model of the Fry-Ark Project and the proposed storage <br />alternatives was developed to analyze each of the storage alternatives with thc projected <br />storage requests. Because none of the storage alternatives individually could meet the <br />full 173, I 00 af of storage initially requested, five (5) scenarios utilizing a combination <br />of the a1tpmatlvPC;: wprp. f()rtl1111~tp~ Thp C'f"'pn~r1^C' .........rH';.-t.o.. ...........,....."'... ^+;.-t""....+~.s:'...;...g r~~'c- <br />-- u - . _ __ __. __ .._~_ .........&&&.................. ...&... ...........&&..........,"' pJ.V~lU..... U 111.....Ul.., Vi lU\..lJLl.1)111 IV 1 <br /> <br />and reservoir impacts due to the proposed alternatives. From these scenarios, limitations <br />and "fatal flaws" can be identified, and a general evaluation of the alternatives can be <br />performed. <br /> <br />Simulations of storage operation scenarios were developed using a MODSIM model of <br />monthly hydrology for the 1966-95 period. Project inflows in the model include West <br />Slope imports through the Boustead Tunnel and native East Slope Arkansas River water <br />rights. No new water rights for diversions from the West Slope were modeled. Demands <br />were established in the model based on full utilization of Project water by agricultural <br />interests and those municipal entities needing Project water to help meet their year 2040 <br />water demands. Non-Project inflows and demands were simulated based on specific <br />information provided by CSU, the Pueblo Board of Water Works, and other water supply <br />entities requesting storage; a regression analysis for Winter Water use; and information <br />collected previously by GEl (1998). Simulation modeling for the five scenarios was <br />performed for two cases: I) firm storage (40,000 af) for Winter Water is provided in the <br />new storage space, and 2) firm storage for Winter Water is not provided. Storage <br />capacities for Scenarios A through E are summarized in Table 3.1. Modeling to assess <br />available storage space for re-operations was based on the guidelines discussed in Section <br />3.3.1. <br /> <br />W GEl Consultants, Inc. <br /> <br />3-18 <br /> <br />hPROJECTS\9906I\Reports\~ferred SOP Final wpd <br />