Laserfiche WebLink
<br />FRUITLAND MESA <br /> <br />Location: <br /> <br />...: --'", ~ <br /> <br />,. <br /> <br />North of the Gunnison River in Delta. Montrose and <br />Gunnison counties, . <br />SpcinsOr: <br />Fruitland Mesa Water Conservancy District. <br />'Primary Purpose of the Project <br />Irrigation, Domestic, <br />Secondary Benefits: <br />Some'rec.reation, municipal.and industria/(coal) potential. <br />History ancl' Background: <br />The' Fruitland Mesa Water Conservancy District was <br />es1abUshed in 1960 and Congress authorized construction <br />of the project four years later, Funds were subsequently <br />appropriated by Coilgress and then ,rescinded in 1977. <br />. Since that time, Congress has consistently refused, 10 <br />appropriate lMlIl modest sums for redesign of the project. <br />The Colorado RigerWater ConS8fYation District provided <br />a' new. scatecklown c:Ieslgn"of the project for the local <br />district. and the Colorado Water Conservation Board has <br />agreed 10 fund half the cost' of Ii feasibUIty study on the <br />redesigned project The project, located above the coal- <br />rich North Forlc of the Gunnison Valley, has been scaled <br />down to enlargement and rehabilitation of the Gould <br />fleservoir and construction of. iI 1().mlle open ditch <br />collection system at the lower. end of Black Mesa plus <br />some improvement to the Fruitland MesaCanal. Although <br />there is a substantial amount of lnigable land In the area, <br />'crop production ,is limited due to a severe shortage of late <br />seasonwaler, With tile scaling down of the project. <br />Irrlgation 'Is limited to 9,000 acres: 2.600 futl service and <br />7.400 supplemental. As redesigned. the project can poten- <br />. tlally increase the livestock population of the area by <br /> <br />'.' <br /> <br />','; <br /> <br />10.000 head of cattle. With increased groWth in the North <br />Fork Valley as a result of coal development,'the projecrs <br />value as a future, optional source of municipal and <br />industrial water increases. Also, new residences to houSe <br />mine workers in the project area and further increase <br />water demand are being developed. . <br /> <br />Physical Facts and Agures: <br /> <br />Height. length and type of dam: Increase height of <br />existing earthfill dam from 55to.8O feet <br /> <br />Storage capacity (A,F,) of reservoir: Increase from 8.400 <br />to 16.600 <br /> <br />Shoreline and surface area: Shoreline from 2.5 to 4 <br />miles: surface area from 300 to 500 acres <br /> <br />Average annual power generation:N/ A <br /> <br />Population to be served: 600 plus anticipated increases <br /> <br />'Ir~gated' acres to be served: 2.600 full supply 6,400 <br />supplemental <br /> <br />Estimated cost $7.000,000, <br /> <br />Construction schedule: Start in 1982. completion' one <br />year later <br /> <br />Proposed Sources of Funding: <br /> <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board's revolving fund <br />and/or the Water and Power Resources Service Small <br />Projects Program, <br /> <br />. <br />For Further InforA18Uon Contact <br /> <br />Edward J, Currier; Engineer <br />Western Engineers, <br />P,O. Box 511, Grand Junction. CO 81501 <br />242-5202 <br /> <br />SAVERY-POT HOOK <br /> <br />Location: <br />In the Little Snake River Basin near Baggs on both sides of <br />,the ColoradO-Wyoming border, <br /> <br />Sponsor: <br />Pot Hook Water ConServancy Districf in Colorado, , <br /> <br />Primary Purpose of the Project <br />Irrigation. <br /> <br />Secondary Benefit <br />Recreation, <br />History and Background: <br />The greatest need in the Little Snake Valley is for stabilized <br />agricultural water suppiy, With the limited reservoir <br />storage now available, the area averages about 28 per cent <br />of Ideal diversion requirements. This limitation has <br />prevented agricultural expansion and forced the area's <br />young people to go elsewhere fora livelihood. The project <br /> <br />is sponsored by two conservancy .districts. one In <br />Colorado and one in Wyoming. The districts were created <br />in t960 and the project was authorized by Congress In <br />1964, Both districts have approved a repayment plan. The <br />project included $4 million for environmental and <br />recreational considerations and Is expected to contribute <br />$2.5 million annually to the economy of the Little Snake <br />Valley. Additionaily, the project wou Id reduce erosion and <br />sediment deposits in the mainstem Colorado River by <br />flood control regulation of spring flows into the Little <br />Snake River from Savery and Slater creeks. A definite plan <br />report and final Environmental Impact Statement were <br />completed in 1977 when President Carter successfully <br />deleted construction lunds from the pUblic works budget <br />The project has remained essentially stagnant since. Main <br />components of the project are Sandstone Reservoir on <br />Savery Creek in Wyoming and Pot Hood Reservoir on <br />Slater Creek in Colorado plus 1>2 miles of canal. Savery- <br />Pot Hook would very positively affect beef prices in that it <br />would send five million pounds of red meat to the market <br />place annually. <br /> <br />(Continued on next page) <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />, <br />