PUB00047

• Year: 2000
• Title: SECWD/Arkansas Basin Preferred Storage Options Plan Final Draft Report
• Author: GEI Consultants, Inc
• Description: SECWD/Arkansas Basin Preferred Storage Options Plan Final Draft Report
• Publications - Doc Type: Water Resource Studies

Final Draft - Preferred Storage Options Plan
Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District
June 8, 2000

. Lake Meredith Enlar~ement: The analysis shows that there is adequate
demand downstream of Lake Meredith, primarily for Fry-Ark deliveries
and well augmentation groups, for even the greatest potential enlargement
volumes. Under all scenarios in which Lake Meredith is enlarged to its
full potential, the reservoir operates through its complete range of
available storage, releasing storage to downstream demands in dry years
and storing inflows in wet years. The most significant drawback to Lake
Meredith enlargement is its efficiency. This is primarily due to the
shallow depth and large surface area of the reservoir, which increases
evaporation, and the conveyance losses between the Arkansas River and
Lake Meredith.

. Gravel Lakes Stora~e: No limitations were found regarding the use of
gravel lakes storage. Typically, a small storage volume can be utilized
through its full range of potential storage capacities. The key constraint
for this alternative will be identifying feasible sites that are located
conveniently to points of demand.

. Williams Creek Reservoir Enlargement: Enlargement of the proposed

Wl11;~rtlC' r,.~,:o1r DeC"-'""""'O;r.C" .........;............;1~. 1-.............+;......,,1 ..........1.. +"......_ ..t............ ~_+~.~_...
.. u.u......u..... '-'.............l'I...I..... ......1.. 11 J.;t Pll1UUlUJ V\...Uv.U\.daJ VUJ] lVi lllU;:)1;; I!;;;UULlC;:>

that have inflows in the Fountain Creek Basin to fill the reservoir. This
primarily includes the FV A entities. The analysis shows that, because of
its smaller surface area and deeper storage pools, the reservoir provides
fairly efficient storage, and allows storage of return flows which can be
exchanged to Pueblo Reservoir, similar to CSU's use of the reservoir.
How_~ver, given the inflows and demand schedules in this analysis, the
maximum enlargement of Williams Creek Reservoir should be limited to
approximately 9,000 af, for a total storage volume of 21 ,000 af.

Each of the five scenarios was ranked by assigning a score based upon hydrologic
and operational factors. Scores range from one to ten, with ten being the best
possible score. These factors primarily include, but are not limited to, operational
flexibility (such as location, ability to store available inflows, and ability to
deliver to demand locations) and storage efficiency (which includes evaporation
and conveyance losses). Because all of the alternatives provide benefits to water
delivery in the basin and have few limitations and no fatal flaws, all alternatives
were assigned scores above a neutral score of five. Rankings which consider
other decision criteria, such as environmental impacts, water quality impacts,
cultural impacts, and socio-economic impacts, have been developed in separate
reports. A summary of the rankings assigned to each alternative is provided
below:

m GEl Consultants, Inc.

3-26

J:\PROJECTS\9906I\Reporu\Preferm:l SOP Final wpd