Laserfiche WebLink
<br />u. S. ARIlY ENGINEERS REPORT (CONT'D) <br /> <br /> <br />The irrigation features of the proposed Castlewood Deln and <br />Cherry Creek Project have herein previously been mentioned in oonnection <br />with our review of the Reclamatiop. Bureau Report of April, 1938. No <br />separate investigation of irrigation was _de by the Corps of Engineers. <br />The report of the Distriot Engineer states, that I "As a result of an <br />agreement with the Bureau of Reollllllation, oonclusions as to the irrigation <br />possibilities in this watershed are taken without modification frOlll their <br />Report on Cherry Creek Project, ColO1'ado, dated April, 1938". <br /> <br />Turning to the question of flood oontroJ., and first, to the <br />difference of opinion as to the assumed design units in the reports on <br />the project by the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation, <br />mentioned by the water Resources Conunittee, attention is directed to the <br />Castlewood Dam and Reservoir, as designed by eaoh agency. <br />Castlewood Dam, Fer army deSign, is 212-feet high, and <br />per Bureau design is l65-feet high. Both contemplate 8,000 acre-feet of <br />controlled storage, and just above, an uncontrolled outlet to release <br />flood storage at the IllESimum rate of 2,500 SElC. ft., as governed by the <br />bankful capacity of the stream below. <br />The difference in dam-height is att.lbutable to differences <br />in design assumptions. Based on the same reservoir design-flood of <br />llemorial Day, 1935, and substantially the S9JJW assumptions as to its trans- <br />position, direction, and duration to produce maximum flood effects in <br />Cherry Creek, the Army provides ;4,500 acre-feet of flood storage capacity, <br />as cODqlared to 27,400 contemplated by the Bureau. This increased capacity <br />involves constructing the spillway crest at 10-feet higher elevation. <br /> <br />-23- <br />