BOARD01143

• Board Meeting Date: 12/11/1953
• Description: Minutes and Resolution
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

301

It also appeared on the basis of rough calculations, that
the substitution in Curecanti Reservoir of the storage capacity
of Taylor Park Reservoir to enable the generation of energy at
Ta;j'lor Park might. be worth hOt to exceed $300,000.

With respect to flood control, comprehensive surveys of
flood damages are not available. A report on snowmelt flood
damage in 1952, prepared by the Grand Junction offices of the
Bureau of Reclamation~ shows' damage at Delta amounting to
_ '$12,700 for that year. According to the streamflow records,
the peak discharge beloW the Gunnison tunnel in that year was
14,000 c.f.s. on June 9. The maximum discharge observed for
the same point during the period 1906-1950 was 19,000 c.f.s.
on June 15, 1921. The 1952 peak was equalled or exceeded in
only 5 years of the 45 year period. Ii' it could be established
that total average annual damages would approach the damage at
Delta in 1952, capitalization of this amount over a 50 year
period would result in $360,000 as a basis for allocation to
flood control. Circular A-47 specifies that the report on a
program or project having Significant maln ste!:l flood control
benefits shall include a statement of the views of the Secretary
of the Army or the Chief of Engineers on such aspects of the
program or project.

I

Storage capacity at Curecanti could be used to firm up
water supplies for exist:Lng irrigation projects diverting from
the Gunnison River below the dam site. Supplemental late sea-
son water could be furnished to Uncompahgre project lands, al-
though ,with Taylor Park Reservoir as a" feature of the project,
it might be difficult to justify additions to diversions which
<,.re approximately 7 acre feet per irrigated acre i'n the average
year. There is also the possibility of furnishing water to
lands under the North Delta Canal. Rehabilitation of that canal
was one of the proposed projects in the Reconnaissance Report,
Gunnison River Project, Colorado, by the Bureau of Reclamation.
The report indicated a-repayment ability of 16 cents per acre
over ana above annual operation and maintenance costs for the
2,770 acres in the project. The irrigation of some 9,000 acres
in the Kannah Creek area by pumping from Whitewater Reservoir
was also - proposed in the sarne report. The report stated that
O. and M. costs would be more than the repayment ability of
those lands at that time, and pumping from the river instead of
the reservoir would increase those costs.

Part of the capacity of Curecanti Reservoir could also be
used to replace diversions of existing ditches above the reser-
voir during low flow periods, and of potential projects which are
so situated that such replacement could be feasibly made from
Curecanti. A study made by the Bureau of Reclamation for the
Policy and Review Committee indicated that in the C8_se of exis-
ting ditches, replacement was necessary in only one year of the
period 1931-1940, assuming full control of Taylor Park reservoir.
There are four projects, with benefit to cost ratios of more
than unity, and repayment ability in excess of O. and M. costs,
descr~bed in the Gunnison River Project report Which might be

I