PROJ00040 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I necessary to analyze water rights in the same degree of detail as was necessary in the case of the Tongue Creek basin because of the analyses already made by the USBR in its study of the Grand Mesa Canal. This canal was once considered by the USBR as part of a possible project to impound water at a new reservoir in the Muddy Creek basin and transfer it to Surface Creek, A new Grand Mesa canal was not considered in the present study, If the Grand Mesa Canal had been constructed, it would have conveyed water to Surface Creek from a new reservoir in the Muddy Creek basin, and additional supplies of water might have been diverted into the canal from the streams which contribute water to Overland Ditch, as well as from Leroux Creek, The USBR determined what quantities of water could be diverted to the Grand Mesa Canal subject to the constraint that such diversions could not infringe on any established water rights, In the case of Leroux Creek basin, the Grand Mesa Canal would have intercepted Leroux Creek at a site where the basin upstream from that site would have the same size as the basin which could potentially contribute water via an extension of Overland Ditch to a new reservoir at Cactus Park, Water potentially available for diversion, as determined by the USBR, was based on a hydrological period of analysis of 1941 to 1966. The consultant extended the record to include the additional years of 1967 to 1984 using average flows of low flow, normal and high flow years during 1941 to 1966, In the case of streams which contribute water to Overland Ditch, the USBR calculated quantities of water available for potential diversion at points where the Grand Mesa Canal would intercept the tributary streams, again taking into account the need to meet all established water rights before making any diversions. As this reach of the Grand Mesa Canal would, if it were built, be south of the route of Overland Ditch, the possible diversion points into the canal have larger watersheds than the diversion points into Overland Ditch. Therefore, the reconstituted streamflow records for each contributing stream were compared to the USBR calculations of water potentially available for diversion and the lesser of the two was used as the historically available supply. A list of selected water rights from District 40, and within the study area, was prepared to display absolute and conditional diversion water rights, The list II-IO