My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00600
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
BOARD00600
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:52:18 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:41:16 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
3/19/1956
Description
Minutes
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Meeting
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
57
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />'~77 <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />historic Moffat tunnel diversions and potential <br />diversion from Blue River and through Jones <br />Pass tunnel within the limit of the present <br />works, in conjunction with potential Colorado-Big <br />Thompson depletions. <br /> <br />Under the assumptions of the study it was found <br />that storable water averaged about 63,000 acre <br />feet, and spills would occur in 13 of the 21 year period, <br />averaging 17,000 acre feet. The average replacement <br />furnished for the uses mentioned would be about <br />47,000 acre feet with a maximum requirement of about <br />70,000 acre feet in anyone water year. The <br />reservoir content by the end of October1954 would be <br />about 20,000 acre feet, which would probably not meet <br />the replacement requirements for winter diversions <br />from Blue River, so that the reservoir would empty <br />in 1955, under the assumptions of the study. <br /> <br />If the Williams Fork collection system were <br />expanded to Middle and South Forks of the Williams <br />or to Darling Creek, inflow to the reservoir <br />and spills therefrom would be correspondingly <br />reduced. Replacement requirements for these <br />expanded diversions, as well as for potential <br />additonal diversions from the Fraser River, would <br />be somewhat greater than those indicated by <br />the operation study described herein. <br /> <br />It would appear that the matters to be resolved <br />in the immediate future with respect to Williams <br />Fork reservoir are principally legal in character. <br />The extent to which further engineering study <br />by our staff is advisable will be dependent upon <br />pdicial determination of water rights relative to <br />the enlargement of the reservoir." <br /> <br />MR. PUGHE: <br /> <br />"We ought to have a copy for each member <br />of the Board, so we can analyze it. <br />It is too much to digest at one time. <br />Does the Attorney General's office have <br />any comments?" <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />MR. J. BARNARD JR: "No comments at this time." <br /> <br />MR. PUGHE: <br /> <br />"If there is nothing futher on <br />Williams Fork situation, we will pass <br />on." <br /> <br />4. Project Reports, Region 4 <br /> <br />MR. PUGHE: "Dean Crawford will make the report." <br /> <br />MR. CRAWFORD: "You will recall, the last meeting of <br />the legislature appropriated $75,000 <br />for projects on the Western Slope. We <br />had a meeting with the Bureau of <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.