BOARD00600

• Board Meeting Date: 3/19/1956
• Description: Minutes
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

\..'376

reduction of about 6,000 acres in the size of the project
if the Jpnes Pass diversion should be expanded to
divert about 28,000 acre feet annually. This study,
however, did not contemplate an increase in storage
capacity of the Williams-Fork Reservoir to 93,000 acre feet.

The question was raised as to the possibility
of securing replacement storage elsewhere above
the Shoshone power plant in lieu of complete ut~liza~ion
of the Williams Fork Reservoir site. It was brought
out that at various times the Bureau has considered
several sites along the Colorado River above that power
plan t.

I

After discussion, it was suggested that before Denver
plans have crystallized, the Bureau, in cooperation
with the Colorado Water Conservation Board, should '
initiate studies to determine at least the physical
characteristics of a project which would provide
the necessary replacement storage for Denver without
unduly curtailing the water supply for potentially
arable lands in the Williams Watershed.

The first step in such a study is to determine the
replacement requirements for the ultimate Moffat tunnel,
Jones Pass tunnel and potential Blue River diversions.
The effects of these diversions, together with potential
depletions by the Colorado-Big Thompson project, on the
stream flows at critical points such as the Shoshone
power plant and the Cameo gage determine the time
and amount of replacement required in order to meet the
demands of senior appropriators.

Our engineering staff has made some estimates of
potential diversions from the Blue River and from the
Williams Fork with the presently constructed collection
system for the Jones Pass tunnel. Before our .studies
had progressed further, Denver made the amended filing
on the Williams Forf Reservoir and made known the intention
to enlarge the reservoir to its full capacity of 93,637 acre
feet.

As a matter of information as to the general magnitude
of the replacement storage which might be required, we made
a rough operation study for the reservoir with that total
ca~city. The inflow to the reservoir was estimated to be
about 90,000 acre feet for the average year of a period
such as 1934-1954, with the Jones Pass tunnel diverting to
the limit of the presently constructed works. It was
assumed that the reservoir would be empty at the end of
the 1934 water year. Williams Fork water was considered
storable at times when such storage would not conflict
with the senior right of the Shoshone power plant.
Replacement was made in the operation study for .

I