Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1 <br />I <br /> <br />Final Draft - Preferred Storage Options Plan <br />Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District <br />June 8, 2000 <br /> <br />Scenario Score(1) <br />Turquoise Reservoir Enlargement 9 <br />Pueblo Reservoir Enlargement 8 <br />Re-operations (Scenario B) 7 <br />Gravel Lakes Storage 7 <br />Lake Meredith Enlargement 6 <br />Williams Creek Reservoir 6 <br />Average 7.2 <br /> <br />(1) <br /> <br />Note: Highest possible score indicating the best performance for water management flexibility is 10. <br /> <br />Turquoise Reservoir enlargement and Pueblo Reservoir enlargement have the highest <br />scores. Turquoise Reservoir enlargement provides relatively efficient storage due to the <br />low evaporation rate and is able to serve all demands in the basin. Due to its location in <br />the basin, Pueblo Reservoir enlargement provides significant operational flexibility with <br />slightly less efficient storage than Turquoise Reservoir due to increased evaporation rates. <br /> <br />Re-operations provides significant operational flexibility and relatively efficient storage, <br />but does not provide firm storage. Gravel Lakes storage provides some benefits in <br />operational flexibility due to their distributed locations, but because each individual <br />reservoir provides only a small portion of the overall storage requirement, the altemative <br />becomes slightly less efficient than other alternatives, and may provide for more <br />operational challenges. <br /> <br />Lake Meredith enlargement and Williams Creek Reservoir expansion were scored just <br />below Re-operations and Gravel Lakes. The primary drawbacks to Lake Meredith <br />enlargement are evaporation and conveyance losses, which decrease storage efficiency. <br />The primary drawback to Williams Creek Reservoir is its location, which limits the <br />volume of water that is available to fill the reservoir. <br /> <br />3.5 Formulation of Potential Storage Plans <br /> <br />The total identified storage need for water users within the District is 122, I 00 af, as identified <br />below: <br /> <br />J IPROIECTS\9906I\ReporuIPreferTed SOP Final wpd <br /> <br />3-27 <br /> <br />m GEl Consultants, Inc. <br />