Laserfiche WebLink
<br />( <br />I <br /> <br />Final Draft - Preferred Storage Options Plan <br />Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District <br />June 8, 2000 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Better management of Winter Water by having a dedicated storage pool into <br />which Winter Water spilled at Pueblo Reservoir could be stored for late use by <br />irrigators. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Management of well augmentation supplies and Project return flows. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Storage for a Water Bank, or to manage temporary water transfers from <br />agricultural to municipal users under Interruptible Supply (IS) agreements. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Storage space for leasing by interested water users on a short- or long-term basis. <br /> <br />The exact volume of this District Water Management Storage needs to be verified through <br />further discussions with interested users and further definition of Water Bank and Interruptible <br />Supply concepts currently under discussion by the District and entities in the Lower Basin. <br />However, the volume of 15,000 af is believed to be suitable for the current level of project <br />planning. <br /> <br />During the Phase I Water Needs Assessment, a wide range of storage options are identified and <br />evaluated (GEl, 1998). From 31 separate storage alternatives, 6 were selected by the District and <br />the sse for further evaluation in Phase II: <br /> <br /> Storage <br /> Potential Base of Storage Potential Estimate <br /> (at) <br />1. Re-operation (Non-structural) 48,500 Modeling analysis (Section 3.4) <br />2. Pueblo Reservoir Enlargement 75,000 USBR estimated site limit <br />3. Lake Meredith Enlargement 75,000 URS - practical site limit <br />4. Turquoise Lake Enlargement 19,590 B&V maximum size with no major reconstruction <br />5. Williams Creek 39,000111 CH2M Hill - estimated site limit <br />6. Gravel Lakes Enlargement 13,000 GEl - potential may be much hi9her <br /> Total 270,090 <br /> <br />UJ Total storage is 51,000 afwith ) 2,000 afrequired by CSU. <br /> <br />Because no individual storage option above meets the full storage need, combinations of storage <br />options were evaluated. <br /> <br />During preparation of the simulation modeling study, MW identified five storage Scenarios A <br />through E to meet storage need of 173,100 af. These scenarios are summarized in Table 3.1, as <br /> <br />J\PROJECTS\9906I\Reporu\Preferred SOP Final wpd <br /> <br />~ GEl Consultants, Inc. <br /> <br />3-29 <br />